Revisiting an Early Nineteenth-Century Debate Author(S): Serhii Plokhy Source: Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne Des Slavistes, Vol

Canadian Slavonic Papers

Ukraine or Little Russia? Revisiting an Early Nineteenth-Century Debate Author(s): Serhii Plokhy Source: Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes, Vol. 48, No. 3/4 (September-December 2006), pp. 335-353 Published by: Canadian Association of Slavists Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40871115 . Accessed: 10/06/2014 14:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Canadian Association of Slavists and Canadian Slavonic Papers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SerhiiPlokhy

Ukraine or Little Russia? Revisiting an Early Nineteenth-CenturyDebate

Abstract: Thisarticle contributes to theexisting literature on the"History of the Rus'," at once the mostmysterious and the mostinfluential product of UkrainianCossack historiography,in three major respects. First, it challengesthe dominant historiographie trendthat treats the "History" as a manifestationof growingnational self-awareness of Ukrainianelites. Second, it contributesto the perennialsearch for the authorof the "History"by claimingthat the manuscriptwas writtensoon after1800, effectively locatingthe work in therealm of nineteenth-centuryhistoriography. Third, it attemptsto identifythe authorand titleof thework that provoked the "Historyof theRus'" - an approachoverlooked or deemed impossible of realization by all studentsof the "History." Morethan anything else, however, this article takes the debate out of the Procrustean bed intowhich it was forcedby the national narratives of a laterera, both Ukrainian and all- Russian.It emphasizesthe simple fact that historians have littlecontrol over the use of theirnarratives.

Few factorsare as crucialto theformation of modernnational identities as the creationand disseminationof commonhistorical myths that explain the origins of a givenethnic or nationalgroup and provideit witha sense of common belonging.1The lateeighteenth and earlynineteenth centuries were a periodof mass productionof nationalmyths, given the highdemand for them on the burgeoningEuropean market of ideas.Historical writing was successfullytaken over by nationalprojects and turnedinto a vehiclefor the popularizationof nationalmythologies at a timewhen history was just beginning to establishitself as a scholarlydiscipline.2 A shortcutto theproduction of elaboratemythologies that"proved" the ancientorigins of modernnations and providedthem with respectablepasts was theforging of ancientdocuments as well as literaryand historicalworks allegedly lost at some timeand now "rediscovered"to the astonishmentand approval of a gratefulpublic. More often than not, the authors of such "rediscovered"treasures were in pursuitof literarysuccess and/or

On therole of historicalmyth in theprocess of modernnation building, see Anthony Smith,The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986) 174-208. 2 See StefanBerger, Mark Donovan, and Kevin Passmore,"Apologias for the Nation- State in WesternEurope since 1800," in idem, WritingNational Histories: Western Europesince 1800 (London and New York:Routledge, 1999) 3-14.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. XLVIII, Nos. 3-4,September-December 2006

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 336 SerhiiPlokhy

money.They did notsuspect that they were fulfilling a social demand,serving as agentsof history, or acting as buildersof as yetnonexistent modern nations.3 JamesMacpherson (1736-1796), a Scottishpoet littleknown in his own right,produced the best-known literary mystification of the era. In the1760s he publishedwhat he claimedto be Englishtranslations of poems by a third- centurybard named Ossian. These were in factold Irishballads of Scottish originthat Macpherson turned into "old Scottishepics," contributingin the processto theformation of modernScottish identity. Although the translations wereshown to be forgeriessoon after Macpherson' s death, his poemsappealed to thereading public far beyond Scotland and contributedto therise of literary 4 romanticismand nationalmovements all over Europe. Soon afterthe appearanceof the first Russian translation of "Ossian,"lovers of literature in the RussianEmpire discovered, to theirsurprise and delight, that they had their own Ossian. His name was Boian, and he was a characterin the Igor Tale, purportedlya twelfth-century epic poemonce lost and now happily rediscovered, provingthat the so-called"Russians" had an ancientand gloriousliterary traditionof theirown.5 The Tale describeda campaignagainst the Polovtsians by a twelfth-centuryprince of Novhorod-Sivers'kyi,a town thatwas fully incorporatedinto the Russian Empire only a fewdecades before the publication ofthe newly "rediscovered" text in 1800.Apparently the publishers and readers of theTale saw nothingunusual in thefact that their national literature had its beginningsin one of thecentres of theUkrainian Hetmanate, a Cossack state createdin the mid-seventeenthcentury and fullyabsorbed by the Russian Empirein the 1780s. But the inhabitantsof Novhorod-Sivers'kyiand the surroundingarea wereless thansatisfied with the kind of historicalmythology producedin imperialcapitals. Indeed, they were on the huntfor their own

On theconnection between literary and criminalforgery in theAge of Enlightenment, see Paul Baines, The House of Forgeryin Eighteenth-CenturyBritain (Burlington: Ashgate,1999). On the functionof historicalforgeries in East CentralEurope and Ukraine,see HryhoriiHrabovych, "Slidamy natsional'nykh mistyfikatsii," Krytyka 5.6 (June2001): 14-23. See Hugh Trevor-Roper,"The Inventionof Tradition:The HighlandTradition in Scotland,"in The Inventionof Tradition,ed. Eric Hobsbawmand TerenceRanger (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1997) 15^1, here17-18. For theimpact of Macpherson's poetry on therise of theRomantic Movement, see HowardGaskill, ed., Receptionof Ossian in Europe (Cardiff: Continuum, 2004). On thereception of Ossian in theRussian Empire, see IuriiLevin, Ossian v russkoiliterature: konets XVHI-pervaia tret'XIX veka (Leningrad:Nauka, 1980). On the inventionof historicalsources in eighteenth-centuryRussia, see Aleksei Tolochko, (iIstoriiaRossiiskaia" Vasiliia Tatishcheva:istochniki i izvestiia (Moscow and Kyiv:Novoe literaturnoeobozrenie and Krytyka,2005), especially pp. 504-523. On the Igor Tale as a late eighteenth-centurytext, see EdwardL. Keenan,Josef Dobrovskyand the Originsof the Roman (Cambridge,Mass.: UkrainianResearch Instituteand Davis Center,2003).

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Revisitingan Early Nineteenth-CenturyDebate 337 ancientmanuscripts that would help themmake sense of theirless distant Cossackpast. Not surprisingly, they found one. The manuscript,entitled "History of the Rusf,"began to circulatein the formerHetmanate in themid- 1820s. It tracedthe history of thelocal Cossacks, whomthe author calls theRus', to theera of the Kyivan princes, and from them, via the historyof Slavic settlementin EasternEurope, all the way back to biblicaltimes. As an exercisein mystification,it was a muchless ambitious undertakingthen either Ossian or the Igor Tale. The introductionto the "History of theRus'" claimedthat the manuscript had beenproduced by generationsof monksworking at the Orthodoxmonastery in Mahilioüand completedin 1769- a merefifty-six years before we encounterthe first clear evidence of the existenceof thework. The anonymousauthor covered his tracksby claiming thatthe work had passed through the hands of two highly respected and, by now, safely dead individuals,the Orthodoxarchbishop of Mahilioü, Heorhii Konys'kyi(1717-1795), and the best-knownUkrainian delegate to Catherine IPs ConstitutionalAssembly of 1767-1768,Hryhorii Poletyka (1723/25-1784). Konys'kyihad allegedlygiven the manuscriptto Poletyka,leading readers to assumethat it was finally"rediscovered" in Poletyka's libraryand thusbecame availableto thepublic. The "History"was an unqualifiedsuccess, copied and recopiedagain and again before it finallysaw printin 1846.6 By thattime it had shapedthe views of scoresof professionaland amateurhistorians, as well as Russianand Ukrainianauthors - includingAleksandr Pushkin, Nikolai Gogol' (MykolaHohol') and Taras Shevchenko- aboutthe Ukrainian past. Romantic authorsof the era were excited by the discovery of an "ancient"manuscript that wentbeyond the dry facts presented in theRus' chronicles.It narratedthe heroic deedsof the Cossacks in imagesthat fired the imagination of theliterary public. Whilethe fascination of Russianliterary figures with the "History of theRus'" turnedout to be short-lived,it had a spectacularcareer in Ukrainian historiographyand literature,shaping generations of Ukrainianpatriots both directlyand through the medium of Taras Shevchenko' s works.7 Like all influentialmystifications, the "History of theRus'" has inspireda voluminousliterature. The mostcontested question discussed by studentsof the

See IstoriiaRusov Hi Maloi Rossii. SochinenieGeorgiia Konisskogo, Arkhiepiskopa Belorusskogo(Moscow: Imperatorskoe obshchestvo istorii i drevnosteirossiiskikh, 1846; repr.Kyiv: Dzvin, 1991). For a briefsummary of the unknownauthor's historical argument,see StephenVelychenko, National History as CulturalProcess: A Surveyof Interpretationsof Ukraine's Past in Polish,Russian and UkrainianHistorical Writing fromthe Earliest Times to 1914 (Edmonton:Canadian Institute of UkrainianStudies Press,1992) 156-158. AlthoughShevchenko was an admirerof the"History of theRus'" and popularizedits heroicversion of theCossack past, he did notshare the anonymous author's nobiliary biasagainst the popular masses.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. XLVIII, Nos. 3-4,September-December 2006

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 338 SerhiiPlokhy

workhas been the identityof its author.The firstpossible author considered (andrejected) was ArchbishopKonys'kyi. A moreserious candidate emerged in theperson of Hryhorii Poletyka, who has beenregarded as eitherthe author or a coauthor(together with his son,Vasyl1 Poletyka [1765-1845]). Another high- profilecandidate was CatherineIPs chancellorand a nativeof theHetmanate, Prince OleksanderBezborod'ko (1747-1799). Other candidateshave been mentionedin theliterature, but only the Poletykas and Bezborod'kohave had a steady followingamong historians.Opinions on the time of the work's appearanceoften depend on a givenscholar's favoured candidate for authorship. Those supportingthe authorshipof Poletykaor Bezborod'kostick to the eighteenthcentury. Others, who favourthe authorshipof Vasyl' Poletykaor believethat the manuscriptwas createdin the circleof Nikolai Repnin,the militarygovernor of LittleRussia in theyears 1816-1834, prefer the first two decadesof thenineteenth century. The onlypoint relating to theorigins of the manuscripton whichhistorians tend to agree is the unknownauthor's close associationwith the Novhorod-Sivers'kyiregion of north-easternUkraine - a hypothesisadvanced by one of the mostdevoted students of the "History," OleksanderOhloblyn.8 The name of the authorand the timeand place of the creationof the "Historyof the Rus'" are not the only questionsdebated by scholars.The political and culturalidentity of the unknownauthor, whose work has contributedimmensely to theprocess of Ukrainiannation building, remains as obscuretoday as it was a centuryand a halfago. The abilityof everynew generationof studentsto findin thetext ideas consonantwith its own seemsto explainboth the lastingsuccess of thework and thelack of a comprehensive studyon the identityof its author.The firstgeneration of Ukrainiannational awakenersinfluenced by the"History" included such luminaries of thenational movementas MykolaKostomarov and Panteleimon Kulish, who had a love-hate relationshipwith the work. On theone hand,they were inspired by theheroic andcolourful images of the Ukrainian past presented by the unknown author; on theother, they regarded the "History" as theproduct of separatistthinking and nobiliaryconservatism, which their populism led themto reject.Mykhailo

o See OleksanderOhloblyn, "Where was lstoriyaRusov Written?"Annals of the UkrainianAcademy of Artsand Sciences in the U.S. 3.2 (1953): 670-695. Hryhorii Poletykahas been regardedas the authorof the "History"by VladimirIkonnikov, OleksanderLazarevsky, Mykola Vasylenko, Dmytro Doroshenko, Iaroslav Dzyra, and HannaShvydko. Mykhailo Hrushevsky advanced the hypothesis of thecoauthorship of Hryhoriiand Vasyl Poletyka.The latterwas consideredthe sole authorby Vasyl Horlenko,Anatolii Iershov and Illia Borshchak.The hypothesisabout Bezborodko's authorshipwas firstsuggested by MykhailoSlabchenko and furtherdeveloped by Pavlo Klepatsky,Andrii Iakovliv and MykhailoVozniak. See OleksanderOhloblyn, "Istoriia Rusov,"Encyclopedia of Ukraine,6 vols. (Toronto:University of TorontoPress, 1984- 2001)2:360.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Revisitingan Early Nineteenth-CenturyDebate 339

Drahomanov,by far the most influentialUkrainian political thinker of the nineteenthcentury, took it uponhimself to defendthe unknown author against populistattacks. He saw inthe author an earlypromoter of all thatthe Ukrainian movementwas strivingfor in the last decades of the nineteenthcentury: Ukrainianautonomy, constitutionalism, and the federalrestructuring of the RussianEmpire. Instead of treatinghim as separatist,Drahomanov saw in the authorof the "History" a personwho shared the liberal and democratic views of the Russian and UkrainianDecembrists. Oleksander Hrushevs'kyi, whose brotherMykhailo wrote the firsthistory of Ukraineas a nation,regarded the "Historyof the Rus"' as an accountof a peopleas opposedto thechronicle of a province- an approachconsonant with the one lateradopted by Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi.Two adherentsof the statist school in twentieth-century Ukrainian historiography,Dmytro Doroshenko and OleksanderOhloblyn, considered the unknownauthor a forerunnerwho allegedly paid specialattention to thehistory ofthe Ukrainian state.9 Not surprisingly,the revivalof the Ukrainiannational movement in the USSR in thelate 1980sand the emergence of independentUkraine in 1991cast thepolitical and culturalviews of theauthor of the"History of theRus1" in a new light.As theadvance of Russificationin theSoviet Union threatened the veryexistence of theUkrainian nation, some students of the"History" came to see itsauthor as a defenderof Ukrainian identity. "The individualwho wrote it," assertedthe Ukrainianauthor and historianValerii Shevchuk in 1991, "truly burnedwith great love forhis unfortunateand enslavedland. Thus,at a time wheneverything Ukrainian was beingbarbarously destroyed, he managedthe featof castingthis passionate pamphlet - a historicalremembrance - before the eyesof his foolishand indifferentcountrymen, who werescrambling, as Taras Shevchenkowrote, for "tin buttons," who "knew all theins and outs"; who were graspingfor estates and jumping out of theirskin to obtainRussian noble rank by anyand all means;who had evenforgotten their mother tongue."10 It would

9 Ohloblyn,who was byfar the most productive and influentialstudent of the monument, also pushedthe "nationalization" of the"History" to the limit,claiming that it was "a declarationof the rightsof the Ukrainiannation" inspired by the "idea of Ukrainian politicalsovereignty," as well as "an act of indictmentagainst Muscovy." See his introductionto a Ukrainiantranslation of thework, Istoriia Rusiv (New York: Visnyk OOChSU, 1956) v-xxix.For a surveyof the nineteenth-and earlytwentieth-century receptionof the "Historyof the Rus'" and researchon the monument,see Mykhailo Vozniak,Psevdo-Konys'kyi i psevdo-Poletyka ("Istoriia Rusov" u literaturii nautsi) (Lviv andKyiv: Ukrainska Mohylians'ko-Mazepyns'ka Akademiia Nauk, 1938) 5-96. Cf. VolodymyrKravchenko, Narysy z ukrains'koiistoriohrafli epokhy natsional'noho Vidrodzhennia(druha polovyna XVIII - seredynaXIX st.) (Kharkiv:Osnova, 1996) 101- 116. ValeriiShevchuk, "Nerozhadani taiemnytsi "Istorii Rusiv"" in IstoriiaRusiv, trans, intomodern Ukrainian by Ivan Drach (Kyiv: Radians'kyi pys'mennyk, 1991) 28.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. XLVIII,Nos. 3-4,September-December 2006

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 340 SerhiiPlokhy appearthat quite a fewstudies dealing with the "History of theRus'" published in Ukraine in the 1990s and early 2000s adopted Shevchuk'spatriotic interpretationofthe work and the goals that its author set himself.11 Clearly,the "History of theRus1" played a majorrole in theformation of Ukrainiannational identity, but the questionsthat remain unanswered are whetherand to whatdegree that role correspondedto the aspirationsof the unknownauthor of the "History"and what his politicaland ethnocultural identityactually was. The presentarticle intends to contributeto thediscussion of thesequestions by takinga closerlook at thepolemic, largely neglected in historiography,between the author of the"History" and an unnamedopponent concerningthe use of the terms"Ukraine" and "LittleRussia." In modern politicaldiscourse, the first term is closelyassociated with the idea ofUkrainian distinctivenessand independence,while the second indicatesa beliefin the existenceof one indivisibleRussian culture and nation,of whichthe Ukrainian people and cultureare consideredmere branches.12 Did theseterms have the same meaningwhen the "History" made its appearance,and, if so, whatdoes thatsay about its author's political and ethnocultural program?

The passage of the "Historyof the Rus'" thatseems mostimportant to our discussionappears in the introduction to the work. It readsas follows:"[I]t must be said withregret that certain absurdities and calumnieshave unfortunately been introducedinto LittleRussian chronicles themselves by theircreators, native-bornRus'ians, who have carelessly followed the shameless and malicious Polishand Lithuanianfabulists. Thus, for example, in one textbookvignette, somenew landby theDnieper, here called Ukraine,is broughtonto the stage fromAncient Rus' or present-dayLittle Russia, and in it Polishkings establish new settlementsand organizeUkrainian Cossacks; and untilthen the land was allegedlyempty and uninhabited,and therewere no Cossacksin Rus'. But it is apparentthat the gentleman writer of such a timidlittle story has neverbeen anywhereexcept his school, and in the land that he callsUkraine he has notseen Rus' towns,the oldestones - or at least mucholder thanhis Polish kings, namely:Cherkassy, Krylov, Mishurin and old Kodak on the DnieperRiver, Chigirinon the Tiasmin,Uman' on the Ros', Ladyzhinand Chagarlykon the Bug, Mogilev,Rashkov and Dubossaryon theDniester, Kamennyi Zaton and Belozerskat thehead of the [Dnieper] Estuary. Of thesetowns, some have been provincialand regionalRus' townsfor many centuries. But forhim all thisis a

For a criticalassessment of the latestUkrainian publications on the topic, see VolodymyrKravchenko, "Istoriia Rusiv u suchasnykhinterpretatsiiakh," in Synopsis: Essays in Honorof Zenon E. Kohut,ed. SerhiiPlokhy and FrankE. Sysyn(Edmonton: CanadianInstitute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2005) 275-294. See the entry"Little Russian Mentality" by Bohdan Kravtsivin Encyclopediaof Ukraine3: 166.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Revisitingan Early Nineteenth-CenturyDebate 341 desert,and he consignsto nothingnessand oblivionthe Rus' princeswho sailed theirgreat flotillas onto the Black Sea fromthe DnieperRiver, that is, from thosevery lands, and made war on Greece,Sinope, Trabzon and Constantinople itselfwith armies from those regions, just as someonehands back Little Russia itselffrom Polish possession without resistance and voluntarily,and thethirty- fourbloody battles that it required,with Rus' armiesopposing the Poles and theirkings and the levy en masse,are of insufficient merit that this nation and its chieftainsbe rendereddue justice for their exploits and heroism."13 Whatshould we makeof this statement? Andrei Storozhenko, who was the firstto focusattention on thisparticular passage of the "History" in 1918,treats itas a manifestationofthe anonymous author's discontent with the efforts of the Polish authorsJan Potocki and Tadeusz Czacki to treatthe Ukrainiansas a peopleseparate from the Russians - theoriesthat in Storozhenko's opinion laid thehistorical foundations for the modern Ukrainian movement.14 While such a possibilitycannot be excluded,in theabove extract the author of the "History of the Rus'" does not argue eitheragainst Potocki' s theorylinking Ukrainian originswith those of the Polianians, Derevlianians, Tivertsians and Siverianians or againstCzacki' s theorythat the Ukrainianswere descendedfrom a tribe called "Ukr."Instead, he rejectsthe notionthat credits Polish kings with the establishmentof Cossackdomand the settlementof the Dniproregion; he bemoansthe view thatneglects the Rus' originsof theCossacks, ignores their longand determinedstruggle for union with Russia, and underminesthe claim of the Rus' nationto its glorioushistory. It shouldalso be notedthat the anonymousauthor's protest was provokednot by Polish (and Lithuanian) writingsper se butby the adoption of the views set forth in thosewritings by the authorsof "LittleRussian chronicles."Identifying the writerwhose work provokedthis polemical outburst on thepart of the author of the "History of the Rus'" is an importantstep toward understanding the nature of thedebate and, amongother things, can helpestablish the time frame within which the famous "History"was written.I shall therefore begin my discussion with an attemptto identifythe author and title of the work that provoked the polemic - an approach overlookedor deemedimpossible of realizationby all studentsof the"History" knownto me. The authorof the"History of theRus'" leftsome useful clues on whereto seekthe object of his attack.The mysteriousauthor must have been a professor or teacherin some kindof school,and his allegedlypro-Polish views were apparentlyset forthin a textbookor otherpedagogical work. The teacher-

IstoriiaRusov Hi Maloi Rossii iii-iv. See A. V. Storozhenko,"Malaia Rossiiaili Ukraina?"First published in 1918 in the journalMalaia Rus'; repr.in Ukrainskiiseparatism v Rossii.Ideologiia natsional'nogo raskola,comp. M. B. Smolin(Moscow: Zhurnal Moskva, 1998) 280-290, here 287-288.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. XLVIII,Nos. 3-4,September-December 2006

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 342 SerhiiPlokhy historianTadeusz Czacki (1765-1813),mentioned by Storozhenko,might well be considereda candidatefor the role. In 1804-1805he was thefounder (and subsequentlya professor) of the Volhynian gymnasium, which later became the Kremianets'Lyceum, a springboardof thePolish national revival in theearly nineteenthcentury. He was also a historianand a ratherprolific author. But Czacki,a prominentPolish educator, is notknown for having written textbooks dealingwith "Little Russian" history. His viewson Ukrainianorigins were most fullyexpressed in his article"On theName of Ukraineand theOrigin of the Cossacks,"first published in a Warsawperiodical in theautumn of 1801,before thefounding of the Volhynian gymnasium. Besides, the "History of the Rus'" is silent about the tribe of "Ukr," the hallmarkof Czacki's theory.More importantly,Czacki can by no meansbe considereda "nativeRus'ian," as was the mysteriousauthor of the textbook,according to the "History."15Tadeusz Czacki shouldtherefore be eliminatedas a possibleaddressee of thepolemical statementquoted above. In searchingfor the authorof the textbookamong professors/teachers of East Slavicorigin, it makes sense to beginwith schools in north-easternUkraine, wheremost scholars believe the "History of the Rus1" to havebeen written. The townof Novhorod-Sivers'kyi,on whichthe authorof the "History"focuses attention,had itsown schoolfrom 1789, but none of theteachers at thesecular schoolor (from1805) thegymnasium is knownfor having published anything on thehistory of Ukraine.16Still, we knowof a publishedhistorian who was thenemployed in neighbouringChernihiv, which had emergedin the late eighteenthcentury as notonly the administrative but also theintellectual centre of theregion. One of theleading historians there was MikhailMarkov (1760- 1819), a GreatRussian by originwho servedas a prosecutorin Novhorod- Sivers'kyi.In 1799 Markovmoved to Chernihiv,where he was appointed directorof schoolsin theLittle Russian gubernia, and from1 805 he servedas directorof theChernihiv gymnasium. He publisheda numberof workson the historyof Chernihivand vicinity,and in 1816-1817 he contributedto the periodicalUkrainskii vestnik (Ukrainian Herald), discussing the origins of Rus' history.17The problemwith Markov's possible authorship of thetextbook that so upsetthe author of the "History of the Rus'" is thatalthough he contributedto

See Tadeusz Czacki,"O nazwiskuUkrainy i poczajtkuKozaków," Nowy Pamietnik Warszawski(October-December 1801) bk. 4: 32^0. On Czacki and his activities,see JulianDybiec, Nie tylkoszablq. Nauka i kulturapolska w walceo utrzymanietozsamosci narodowej,1795-1918 (Cracow: Ksiçgarnia Akademicka, 2004) 75-80, 112-113. On the secular school and gymnasiumin Novhorod-Sivers'kyi,see Oleksander Ohloblyn'sessay on the foundingdirector of both schools, Ivan Khalans'kyi,in Ohloblvn,Liudv staroi Ukrainy (Munich: Dniorova khvylia, 1959) 262-269. 17 - On Markov,see Oleh Zhurba,Stanovlennia ukrains'koi arkheohrafii: liudy, idei, instytutsii(Dnipropetrovs'k: Vydavnytstvo Dnipropetrovs'koho universytetu, 2003) 94- 119.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Revisitingan Early Nineteenth-CenturyDebate 343 publicationsdealing with education, he neverwrote anything approaching a historytextbook, and his eight-page essay ambitiously titled "An Introductionto LittleRussian History" (1817) advancedno furtherthan the period of Kyivan Rus1.On top of that,while Markov contributed to Ukrainskiivestnik (so titled becauseit appeared in Kharkiv,the capital of the Sloboda Ukraine gubernia), he avoidedUkrainian terminology in his writingsand can hardlybe suspectedof Polonophilismor Ukrainophilism inthe senses implied by Storozhenko. The school and gymnasiumnext closest to Novhorod-Sivers'kyiwith a publishedhistorian on its staffwas in Kyiv. The historianin questionwas Maksym Berlyns'kyi(1764-1848), who lived long enough to chair the organizingcommittee for the establishmentof Kyiv University.Having been bornin thevicinity of Putyvl'into the family of an Orthodoxpriest, Berlyns'kyi could certainlybe considereda "nativeRus'ian," a termthat the anonymous authorof the"History of theRus'" could have appliedto GreatRussians and Ukrainiansalike. He was appointeda teacherat the recentlyopened secular school (latergymnasium) in Kyiv in 1788, aftergraduating from the Kyiv MohylaAcademy and trainingfor two yearsat the teachers'college in St. Petersburg.Berlyns'kyi taught at the Kyiv gymnasiumuntil his retirementin 1834, thereby meeting another qualification - that of a lifelongteacher who had neverbeen anywhereexcept his school, as specifiedby the authorof the "History."But probablythe most important of his formalqualifications is that his manyworks on Ukrainianhistory included a textbook,Kratkaia rossiiskaia istoriiadlia upotrebleniiaiunoshestvu (Short History of Russia forthe Use of YoungPeople, 1800). Even moreinteresting in thisconnection is thatthe textbook included an essayon Ukrainianhistory entitled "Primechanie o Malorossii"(Note on Little Russia).It was insertedinto a basicallyGreat Russian historical narrative, in the sectiondealing with the rule of Tsar AlekseiMikhailovich, and coveredthe historyof Ukraine from the Mongol invasion to theTruce of Andrusovo (1667). SubsequentUkrainian history was treatedwithin the contextof imperial 18 Russia. Thus Berlyns'kyiperfectly matches the image of the mysterious opponentinvoked by theauthor of the"History of theRus'" in theintroduction to that work. But does Berlyns'kyi's textbookindeed use "Ukrainian" terminologyand includepro-Polish passages, as suggestedby theanonymous

1 g See Kratkaiarossiiskaia istoriia dlia upotrebleniiaiunoshestvu, nachinaiushchemu obuchat'siaistorii, prodolzhennaia do iskhodaXVIII stoletiia,sochinennaia v Kieve uchitelemMaksimom Berlinskim (Moscow: V tipografiiReshetnikova, 1800) 93-106. On Berlyns'kyiand his writings,see David Saunders,The UkrainianImpact on Russian Culture,1750-1850 (Edmonton:Canadian Institute of UkrainianStudies Press, 1985) 209-212;Mykhailo Braichevs'kyi, "Maksym Berlyns'kyi ta ioho'Istoriia mista Kyieva,'" in MaksymBerlyns'kyi, Istoriia mista Kyieva (Kyiv: Chas, 1991) 5-20; Kravchenko, Narysyz ukrains'koiistoriohrafli 80-84.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. XLVIII, Nos. 3-4,September-December 2006

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 344 SerhiiPlokhy author?The veryfirst sentence of Berlyns'kyi's "Note on LittleRussia" gives a positiveanswer to thisquestion, since it impliesthat the original name of that landwas indeedUkraine. It reads:"Ukraine received its name of LittleRussia afterits unionwith Russia." Accordingto Berlyns'kyi,King SigismundI of Poland,"seeing that the Ukrainiansengaged in militarypursuits, who were knownas Cossacks,were accomplishing very brave and valiant exploits... gave thempermission to occupyplaces above and below thetown of Kiev and,in 1506, gave them their firstleader with the title of hetmán,a certain Liaskorons'kyi[Lanckoroñski], to whomhe grantedthe towns of Chigirinand Cherkassyas possessions."King StefanBatory, for his part,"confirmed the Ukrainians'previous privileges in 1576 and gave themnew ones; hencethe emptylands between the Dnieper, Bar and Kiev weresoon settledby them."19 Thusthe author of the"Note on LittleRussia" was indeed"guilty as charged" by theauthor of "Historyof theRus"' whenit comesto theorigins of thename Ukraine,the Polish kings' organization of theCossack Host, and thesettlement ofthe steppe borderlands. Whatmight this findingmean forour discussion?First, it appearsthat Berlyns'kyiwas indeedthe target of theauthor of the"History of theRus'." It also indicatesthat the "History" could not have been written prior to 1800,the yearin whichBerlyns'kyi's textbook was published.Nor could it have been writtenmuch later than the first decade of the nineteenth century, otherwise the critiqueof the textbook would have lost its significance to theanonymous author and appealto thereader. This findingis supportedby OleksanderOhloblyn's research,which places the creation of theoriginal manuscript of the "History of the Rus'" between1802 and 1805, and IuriiShevelov's hypothesis that final changesto thetext may have been made in 1808-1 809.20 It givesus muchbetter groundsthan any previously available to place themonument into a particular timeframe and political context. Last butnot least, an analysisof Berlyns'kyi's textbookand his otherwritings can offera betterunderstanding ofthe historical and ideologicalmessage of the "History"and the natureof the "Ukrainevs. LittleRussia" debate initiated by its anonymous author. A readingof Berlyns'kyi'sShort History of Russia indicatesthat he hardly deservedthe harsh treatment meted out to himby theauthor of the"History." Berlyns'kyiwas by no meanssystematic in his use of theterms "Ukraine" and "Ukrainians,"which he consideredinterchangeable with "Little Russia" and "LittleRussians." The textbookalso shows thathe was far frombeing a Polonophile:for example, he notedwith regret that the Time of Troubles did not

19 Berlinskii,Kratkaia rossiiskaia istoriia 93, 96-97,98-99. See Ohloblyn'sintroduction to IstoriiaRusiv viii; Iurii Shevelov,"Istoriia Rusov ochymamovoznavtsia," in Zbirnykna poshanuprof, d-ra OleksandraOhloblyna, ed. VasylOmelchenko (New York:Ukrains'ka Vil'na Akademiia Nauk v SShA, 1977)465- 482.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Revisitingan Early Nineteenth-CenturyDebate 345 allow Little Russia to unite with Russia ("our fatherland")in the early seventeenthcentury. Berlyns'kyi condemned the Poles fortheir persecution of Ukrainianson theeve of theKhmel'nyts'kyi Uprising (1648), allegedlyagainst thewishes of KingWladystaw IV. He evenwrote in thatregard: "That was the main reasonfor the civil war! Whatthe crownaffirmed, the Polish nation rejected.And that discord united all theLittle Russians against the republic."21 AlthoughBerlyns'kyi did not produce colourful descriptions of the Cossack wars withthe Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth prior to theKhmel'nyts'kyi Uprising, as didthe author of the "History of the Rus'," he notedthat Khmel'nyts'kyi "was notthe first to takeup armsagainst the Poles, for at varioustimes in thecourse of fiftyyears his predecessorshad done so, butalways in vain."22In general, Berlyns'kyiproduced a briefbut quite accuratedescription of the period, especiallyas comparedwith the one offeredby the author of the "History of the Rus'." The latterclearly resorted to simplifyingand vilifyingthe arguments of his opponent.But werehis suspicionsregarding Berlyns'kyi' s Polish leanings completelygroundless? Berlyns'kyidid not identifyhis sources,leaving us no directevidence of possibleinfluences on hiswork. He certainlycould not have taken his lead from theabove-mentioned article by TadeuszCzacki on theorigins of Ukraineand theCossacks, for it was publisheda yearlater than his own textbook.But this does notmean that he lackedaccess to otherworks by Polishauthors or had no directcontact with Polish historians. We haveno indicationthat Berlyns'kyi was close to Polishintellectuals or alleged"Polonophiles" in the RussianEmpire around1 800, butthere is plentyof suchevidence pertaining to thelater period. The secularschool in Kyiv whereBerlyns'kyi taught, which later became a gymnasium,belonged to the Vilniuseducational district; from 1803 it was headedby theclose confidantof EmperorAlexander I andardent Polish patriot Adam Czartoryski.Not surprisingly,it was to him thatBerlyns'kyi sent the manuscriptof his new work,entitled "A Historyof LittleRussia" (1803), requestingpermission and financialassistance to publishthe book. Czartoryski was quitesupportive of Berlyns'kyi's initiative. In a memorandumon theissue he pointedout that there was no publishedhistory of Little Russia, endorsed the publicationof Berlyns'kyi's manuscript, and notedthat it wouldhave "a great bearingon generalRussian history as well."Also supportiveof theproject was Czartoryski's superior at thetime, the minister of education, Petro Zavadovs'kyi, to whomthe memorandumwas addressed.A nativeof the Hetmanateand a formerlover of CatherineII, Zavadovs'kyibegan his educationat a Jesuit seminaryin Orshaand was knownfor his good relationswith Tadeusz Czacki and generalsympathy toward the Poles. Actingon Czartoryski'sendorsement,

Berlinskii,Kratkaia rossiiskaia istoriia 100. Kratkaiarossiiskaia istoriia 101.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. XLVIII,Nos. 3-4,September-December 2006

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 346 SerhiiPlokhy he allocated500 rublesfor Berlyns'kyi's "History," but that was insufficientto coverthe costs of publication, and it never appeared in print.23 Excerptsfrom the book were eventuallypublished by anotherreputed Ukrainian"Polonophile," Vasyl' Anastasevych,who was a secretaryto Czartoryskiduring his yearsas head of theVilnius educational district (1803- 1817) and a close acquaintanceof Czacki and thePolish ethnographer Zorian Dolçga Chodakowski(Adam Czarnocki). In 1811,Anastasevych published the firstexcerpt in his journal Ulei, whereit appearedseveral issues afterthe Russiantranslation of Tadeusz Czacki' s famousarticle on theorigins of Ukraine and Cossackdom.It seems thatAnastasevych then took possessionof the manuscript,for he publishedthe last knownexcerpt of the book as late as 24 1844. Broadercircles in the formerHetmanate may well have known Berlyns'kyi'sclose contacts with "Polonophiles"among the Ukrainian bureaucratsand intellectuals.An episodethat may have revealedsuch contacts was the controversyof 1805 over the languageof educationin the Kyiv gymnasium,whose director insisted on Russian,while Minister Zavadovs'kyi, who, given his backgroundand education,considered Russian and Polish mutuallyintelligible, favoured the latter. We do notknow whether Berlyns'kyi took a positionon the issue, but if he did so, he may well have supported Zavadovs'kyi,who (as notedabove) soughtto promotethe publication of his 25 history. Therewere certainly other occasions for former Cossack officeholders of north-easternUkraine to learn of Berlyns'kyi'scontacts and possible sympathies,which must have been at odds withthe traditionalanti-Polish sentimentsof theregion's elites. The authorof the"History of theRus'" may well haveread back into Berlyns'kyi's textbook what he knewabout the author otherwise. The ironyof thesituation is thatUkrainian terminology may have entered Berlyns'kyi'stextbook and his "Historyof theCity of Kyiv,"a workwritten in

On Berlyns'ky'sattempts to publishthe manuscript,see Saunders,The Ukrainian Impact211. In citingthis work, Volodymyr Kravchenko (Narysy z istoriiukrains'koi istoriohrafli81) givesa somewhatdifferent title: "Istoricheskoe obozrenie Malorossii." 24 On Anastasevych,see Saunders,The UkrainianImpact 140-144. The translationof Czacki's articleappeared in pt. 1.1 of Ulei for1811. Two of Berlyns'kyi'scontributions, "RazdelenieMalorossii na polki"and "O gorodeKieve," appeared in thesame year, in pt. 1.3,and pt.2.8 of thejournal respectively. Anastasevych visited Berlyns'kyi in Kyiv in 1811, and afterwardsthey stayed in touchby correspondence.See excerptsfrom Berlyns'kyi'sprivate diary in theVolodymyr Vernads'kyi Library, National Academy of Sciencesof Ukraine (Kyiv), Manuscript Institute, fond 175, no. 1057,section 2, pp. 1-55. On thedebate over the language of educationat theKyiv gymnasium, see Saunders, The UkrainianImpact 31-32. At somepoint prior to spring1817, Berlyns'kyi came into conflictwith then director of the Kyiv gymnasiumand petitionedthe St. Petersburg authoritiesin thatregard. See a letterto Berlyns'kyifrom his brotherMatvii from St. Petersburg,dated 2 Mar. 1817, in the VolodymyrVernads'kyi Library, Manuscript Institute,fond 175, no. 1057,section 1, fols. 7-8.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Revisitingan Early Nineteenth-CenturyDebate 347 thelate eighteenth century, not from Polish but from Ukrainian writings. One of thelast eighteenth-century Cossack chroniclers, Petro Symonovs'kyi, the author of"Kratkoe opisanie o kazatskommalorossiiskom narode" (Brief Description of the Cossack LittleRussian Nation), was Berlyns'kyi'ssupervisor and mentor duringhis firstyears at theKyiv school.26 The majorCossack chronicles of the earlyeighteenth century, including that of HryhoriiHrabianka - an important sourcefor Cossack historiography ofthe later period - werefull of references to "Ukraine,"used interchangeablywith "Little Russia," as in Berlyns'kyi's textbook.27At theturn of thenineteenth century, Berlyns'kyi was by no means theonly Ukrainian author prepared to makea connectionbetween Stefan Batory, theCossacks, and thename of Ukraine.Similar views wereexpressed by his contemporaryYakiv Markovych,who publishedhis "Noteson LittleRussia" (1798),a historical,geographical, and ethnographic description of his homeland. ButMarkovych never wrote anything remotely resembling a textbook or taught in any"school" in Russiaor Ukraine, which excludes him as a possibleobject of attackby the author of the "History of the Rus'."28 Even the unknownauthor of the "Historyof the Rus'," who objectedto Ukrainianterminology as a signof Polishintrigue, was unableto keepthe term "Ukraine"out of his ownwork. It penetratedthe narrative despite the author's intentions,proclaimed in the programmaticstatement included in his introduction.He was overcomeby his sources- apocryphaleighteenth-century letters,foreign histories, and Russianofficial documents of thelate eighteenth and earlynineteenth centuries, which were full of Ukrainianterminology. For example,in an apocryphalletter of May 1648 fromBohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi, the term"Little Russian Ukraine" appears four times in a varietyof combinations, andthere is a referenceto "all Ukraine."29The anonymousauthor also writesof Ukrainewhen referring to Voltaire'scomment on theUkrainian expedition of CharlesXII of Swedenin 1708-1 709.30 There are at leasttwo references in the

The UkrainianImpact 211. On Symonovs'kyiand his writings,see Ohloblyn,Liudy staroiUkrainy 219-36. On theuse ofthese terms in Cossackhistoriography ofthe early eighteenth century, see FrankE. Sysyn,"The Imageof Russia and Russian-UkrainianRelations in Ukrainian Historiographyof the Late Seventeenthand EarlyEighteenth Centuries," in Culture, Nation,and Identity:The Ukrainian-RussianEncounter, 1600-1945 (Edmontonand Toronto:Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2003) 108-143. On Markovych's attitudeto the issue of the Cossacks and Ukraine,see Oleksii Tolochko,"Kyievo-rus'ka spadshchyna v istorychniidumtsi Ukrainy pochatku XIX st." in V. F. Verstiuk,V. M. Horobets',and O. P. Tolochko,Ukraina i Rosiia v istorychnii retrospektyvi,vol. 1: Ukrains'kiproekty v Rosiis'kiiimperii (Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 2004) 250-350,here 303. 29 See IstoriiaRusov 68-74. IstoriiaRusov 208.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. XLVIII,Nos. 3-4,September-December 2006

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 348 SerhiiPlokhy

textof the "History" to the"Ukrainian line," the group of Russianforts built by theimperial government to protectUkrainian and Russian territories from Tatar incursions.31Under the influenceof his sources,the anonymousauthor often uses "Ukraine"with reference to theRight Bank of theDnipro - theterritory thathe definesas Rus1,not Ukraine, in his introduction.32In the main text of his work,the anonymousauthor also writesabout "Ukrainianpeoples" and "Christiansof Ukrainianfaith (veroispovedaniia)."33 Whatever his ideological postulates,the author of the"History of theRus1" was unableto divesthimself entirelyof thetradition established by earlierUkrainian authors, for whom the term"Ukraine" had no negativeconnotations and entailedno suggestionof Polishintrigue. The hostilityshown by theauthor of the"History of theRus'" to theterm "Ukraine"marked a clearbreak with Ukrainian historiographie tradition. Since it occurredin a workthat generations of scholarshave consideredthe pinnacle of earlymodern Cossack historiography,it deserves further discussion. What madesuch a breakpossible, and what motives lay behindit? With regard to the firstpart of thequestion, one shouldtake account of thenew meaning acquired by theterm "Ukraine" in officialdiscourse and public consciousness of thelate eighteenthand earlynineteenth centuries. In thatperiod, the term began to be associatedfirst and foremostwith lands outside the Cossack Hetmanate. Thus the"Ukrainian line" of fortificationswas builtin the1730s to theeast and south of theHetmanate. The SlobodaUkraine gubernia was establishedin 1765,with itsadministrative centre in Kharkiv.It keptthat name until 1780 and was then restoredwith different boundaries in 1796;it was renamedthe Kharkiv gubernia in 1835.By contrast,the restoration of the Hetmanate' s territorial integrity after its liquidationby CatherineII was associatedwith the briefexistence of the Little Russian gubernia,administered from Chernihiv, between 1796 and 1802. 34 The close associationof "LittleRussia" withthe landsof the former Hetmanateand of "Ukraine"with the territoriesof Sloboda Ukraineis well attestedin a privateletter from a prominentUkrainian intellectual of the period, HryhoriiSkovoroda. In September1790, he wroteof "my mother,Little Russia,"and "myaunt, Ukraine,"35 apparently meaning that while he had been bornand raisedin the Hetmanate,most of his adultlife had been spentin neighbouringSloboda Ukraine. Thus, by thetime the "History of the Rus'" was written,local eliteshad largelyceased to associatethe name "Ukraine" with the

IstoriiaRusov 236, 253. 32 IstoriiciRusov 161, 167, 172, 179. IstoriiaRusov 242, 253. 34 On the "Ukrainianline" and the names of the guberniasin question,see the Encyclopediaof Ukraine 2: 451; 3: 165;5: 398. See HryhoriiSkovoroda, Tvory u dvohhtomakh (Kyiv: Oberehy, 1994) 2: 316.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Revisitingan Early Nineteenth-CenturyDebate 349

territoryof the Hetmanate,and some authorsmay well have regardedit as a foreigninvention. Let us now turnto theauthor's motives for breaking with historiographie tradition.The mostobvious of them appears to be hisanti-Polish attitude, which he does not attemptto conceal.In Polish historiographythe term"Ukraine" preservedits originalmeaning as firstand foremostthe land of theCossacks, givingthe author a good opportunityto strike at thePoles. His attackseems to have been well timed.If the authorwas indeedresponding to Berlyns'kyi's textbook,as arguedabove, then the Zeitgeist of his "History" was thatof the first decade of the nineteenthcentury, which was highlyconducive to a renewed confrontationwith the Poles. The feverishactivity of Adam Czartoryski,who was notonly presiding over the increasing cultural Polonization of theVilnius educationaldistrict but also, as de factoforeign minister of Russia,preparing to restorethe Kingdom of Poland under the auspices of the Russian tsar, provoked a strongnegative response from Russian society. Distrust of Poles grewin the secondhalf of thedecade, when Polish exiles in theWest sided with Napoleon, andthe French emperor, perceived by that time as Russia'sworst enemy, carved a Polishpolity known as theDuchy of Warsawout of thePrussian part of the formerCommonwealth. In 1806-1807the Poles weresubmitting proposals to Napoleonto makePodilia, Volhynia and Right-BankUkraine part of a future Polish state.36The elitesof the formerHetmanate could by no meanshave endorsedthe inclusion of theRight Bank (lands that the author of the"History ofthe Rus'" claimed as ancientRus' territories)into a futurePolish polity under AlexanderI or Napoleon.Rising anti-Polish sentiment in theRussian Empire gavethe Cossack elites of the former Hetmanate a goodopportunity not only to settlehistorical scores with their traditional enemy but also to takecredit for theirage-old struggle with Poland.37 At theturn of thenineteenth century, the Cossack elitesneeded recognition of theirformer services to the all-Russian cause morethan ever before, as theimperial authorities continued to question

On Czartoryski's activities and efforts to restorePolish statehood in thefirst decade of thenineteenth century, see PiotrS. Wandycz,The Lands ofPartitioned Poland, 1795- 1918 (Seattleand London:University of WashingtonPress, 1974) 33^2. On Polish plansfor Right-Bank Ukraine in connectionwith Napoleon's policies in EasternEurope, see Il'ko Borshchak,Napoleon i Ukraina(Lviv: BibliotekaDila, 1937). Cf. Vadym Adadurov,"Narodzhennia odnoho istorychnoho mitu: problema 'Napoleon i Ukraina'u vysvitlenniIl'ka Borshchaka,"Ukraina moderna (Kyiv and Lviv) 9 (2005): 212-236, here227, 233. 1 am gratefulto oneof the anonymous reviewers of this article for bringing to myattention the impact that Polish plans to reclaimRight-Bank Ukraine may have had on thepolitical agenda of the author of the "History of the Rus'." 37 On the growthof anti-Polishsentiment in Russiansociety during that period, see AndreiZorin, Kormia dvuglavogo orla... Literaturai gosudarstvennaiaideologiia v Rossii v posledneitreti XVIII- pervoi tretiXIX veka (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie,2001) 157-186.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. XLVIII,Nos. 3-4,September-December 2006

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 350 SerhiiPlokhy thenobiliary credentials of mostof the lower-rankingCossack officers.38Not surprisingly,in the above-citedextract from the "History,"its authorasked rhetoricallywhether the Cossack wars with the Poles were"of insufficient merit thatthis nation and itschieftains be rendereddue justice for their exploits and heroism."39 MaksymBerlyns'kyi, a priest's son and a schoolteacher,is unlikely to have beenready or willingto performthat function for the Cossack officer elites of the formerHetmanate. His generalassessment of the Ukrainianpast was damningof thosewho extolledthe heroic deeds of theCossack nation. "In a word,"he wrotein his article"On the Cityof Kyiv,""this people groaned beneaththe Polishyoke, made war underLithuanian banners, occupied itself withthe Union under Polish rule and contended for privilege under Russian rule, producingnothing for us exceptdescendants."40 As VolodymyrKravchenko has recentlynoted, Berlyns'kyi was also quitenegative in his assessmentof the role ofCossackdom, especially the Cossack officer elite - an attitudethat caused him difficultywhen an excerptfrom his "Historyof LittleRussia" was considered forpublication in 1844. On the recommendationof the prominentimperial Russianhistorian Nikolai Ustrialov, a negativecharacterization of the Cossacks was removedfrom the journal publication.41 It is entirelypossible that the anti- Cossackattitudes of Berlyns'kyi, whose writings clearly favoured Ukrainian city dwellers,prevented the publication of his "History"year after year. Ironically, Berlyns'kyilived long enough to see thepublication of the "History of the Rus'," whichcontained an attackon his views and was potentiallydangerous to the imperialregime, but not long enoughto witnessthe appearanceof his own works,such as the"History of LittleRussia" and the"History of the Cityof Kyiv,"which were perfectly loyal to the authorities. It would appearthat Andrei Storozhenko was wrongwhen he presented (firstin 1918 and thenin 1924) the unknownopponent of the authorof the "Historyof the Rus'" in the"Ukraine vs. LittleRussia" debate as a promoterof Polish-ledattempts to establishthe Ukrainians'distinct origins and separate

38 On thestruggle for the recognition of Cossackranks and historicalwritings produced in orderto establishthe nobiliary status of theHetmanate's elite, see ZenonE. Kohut, RussianCentralism and UkrainianAutonomy: Imperial Absorption of theHetmanate, 1760s-1830s(Cambridge, Mass.: UkrainianResearch Institute, 1988) 248-284. 39 IstoriiaRusov lv. Quotedin Kravchenko,Narysy z ukrains'koiistoriohrafiii 83. The article"O gorode Kieve,"published in Ulei in 1811,was an excerptfrom Berlyns'kyi' s larger study on the "Historyof theCity of Kyiv."This particularassessment, which would probably have infuriatedthe author of the"History of theRus'," was also apparentlyless thanpleasing to thepublishers of Berlyns'kyi's work. According to Kravchenko,itwas notincluded in the1991 edition of Istoriia mista Kyieva. See Kravchenko,Narysy z ukrains'koiistoriohrafiii 83-84.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Revisitingan Early Nineteenth-CenturyDebate 351 themfrom their Rus' roots.42In the earlynineteenth century, the Ukrainian terminologyagainst which the authorof the "History"protested was indeed associatedwith the Polish vision of Ukraineas separatefrom Russia, and from the 1840s on it servedto promotethe Ukrainian national idea in the Russian Empire.But it wouldbe wrongto assumethat the author of the"History" was combatingthe Ukrainian or proto-Ukrainiantrend represented by Berlyns'kyi's textbook.While the Ukrainianterminology used by Berlyns'kyiimplicitly compromisedhis projectof integratingthe Cossack elites intothe imperial Russiannarrative, Berlyns'kyi himself did not threaten the pan-Russian vision of theanonymous author, nor did the historical paradigm employed in his textbook. If anything,Berlyns'kyi's scheme integrated the Cossack past into the imperial Russian narrativemore effectivelythan did the "Historyof the Rus'." Berlyns'kyi,who traced all thatwas good in Kyivand Ukraine back to thereign of CatherineII, achievedhis integrationwithout claiming any special historical rightsfor the Cossack elites- an attitudedirectly opposed to that of the anonymousauthor of the "History."43 This explainshow the "Historyof the Rus'" becamea majorideological threatto theempire. Given its long-term impact on thehistorical imagination of generationsof Ukrainianactivists, that threat can hardlybe denied.Despite the "anti-Ukrainian"remarks made in theintroduction to the book, the author of the "Historyof the Rus'" filled his narrativewith numerousanti-Muscovite statements,which, like theterm "Ukraine," he mayhave takenover fromthe earlierCossack chronicles and historicaltradition. He also claimedthe Kyivan Rus' past, which had been consideredpart of Russian historyalone, and extendedthe courte durée of previousCossack historiography, whose narrative was mainlylimited to the post-1648 historyof Ukraine.44By celebratingthe gloriouspast of the Cossack Host, the "History of the Rus'" inspiredUkrainians to espousea historicaland national identity distinct from that of Russia.

Whatconclusions may be drawnfrom the originsof the "Ukrainevs. Little Russia"debate and itsrole in theformation of nationalmythologies in thelate eighteenthand early nineteenth centuries? First, it appears that there are grounds to challengethe dominant historiographie trend, which treats the "History of the Rus'" as a manifestationof growing Ukrainian self-awareness. The delimitation

See A. Tsarinnyi[A. Storozhenko],"Ukrainskoe dvizhenie. Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk,preimushchestvenno po lichnym vospominaniiam," in Ukrainskiiseparatizm v Rossii133-252, here 142-143. 43 On Berlyns'kyi'sinterpretation of the Ukrainianpast in his unpublished"History of LittleRussia," see Kravchenko,Narysy z ukrains'koiistoriohrafiii 84. 44 On Russianinterpretations of Ukrainian history in thefirst decades of thenineteenth century,including the tendency to claimthe history of KyivanRus' forRussia alone, see Tolochko,"Kyievo-rus'ka spadshchyna," 266-309.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. XLVIII, Nos. 3-4,September-December 2006

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 352 SerhiiPlokhy

of Russianand Ukrainianidentity was notamong the goals of theanonymous authorof the "Historyof the Rus'." In all likelihood,as notedabove, his immediategoal was to ease theintegration of theCossack elites into the Russian nobilityand societyat large,as well as to enlistSt. Petersburg'ssupport in fightingPolish "intrigues" in Right-BankUkraine, by narrating the heroic deeds ofhis people. His polemicwith Berlyns'kyi and his choiceof terminology show thatthe anonymous author wanted to achievehis goal by playingthe Rus' card (the titleof his work is most eloquentin thatregard). He presentedhis compatriotsas moreRus'ian than the Great Russian themselves, giving former Cossack officeholdersa basis to claim equal statuswith the GreatRussian nobility. If thatwas indeedthe case, howdoes the"History of theRus1" fit into the "nationalmythology" and "nationalmystification" paradigm? While such mystificationsas the Igor Tale helpedbuild up pridein theall-Russian nation, tracingthe roots of itsliterary tradition back to thetwelfth-century court of the princeof Novhorod-Sivers'kyi, what was thefunction of the "History of Rus'," a workactually produced in thevicinity of thatancient town? It maybe argued thatoriginally the "History's" main function was thecreation of a subordinate myth,a historicalnarrative intended to helpLittle Russians partake in thelarger historicalmyth of theall-Russian nation. That function, however, changed with the passage of time.As AnthonyD. Smithhas noted,"myths, memories, symbolsand values,"if viewedas constituentparts of culturesand identities, "can oftenbe adaptedto new circumstancesby beingaccorded new meanings and new functions."45This is whatseems to havehappened to thecollection of heroicstories and imagescreated by theauthor of the"History." Produced for one purpose,they were successfully adapted to serveanother: instead of helping to integratethe Cossack past into the all-Russian narrative, they served as a basis forthe creation of a newnational narrative of Ukrainian history. The role thatthe "Historyof the Rus'" has playedin the formationof Ukrainianhistorical identity highlights the simple fact that historians have little controlover the use of theirnarratives. As Eric Hobsbawmwarned his fellow historians,"The cropswe cultivatein ourfields may end up as someversion of the opium of the people."46If this metaphor,supplied by one of the last Mohicansof Marxisthistoriography in the West,can be appliedto national ideology,then the reception of the "History of the Rus'" is indeeda case inpoint. Like the poetryof Adam Mickiewicz,which inspiredproponents of the nineteenth-centuryPolish, Lithuanian and Belarusiannational movements, the imageof the heroicCossack past producedby the anonymousauthor of the "Historyof theRus'" clearlycaptured the imagination of his readers,whatever

Smith,The Ethnic Origins of Nations 3. Eric Hobsbawm,"Identity History Is Not Enough,"in idem,On History(New York: New Press,1997)276.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Revisitingan Early Nineteenth-CenturyDebate 353 theirnational ideologies.47 It inspiredboth a proponentof all-Russianidentity, Nikolai Gogol1,and the fatherof the modernUkrainian nation, Taras Shevchenko.In theend it was thelatter' s interpretationthat prevailed, turning theanonymous author of the"History," a self-proclaimedenemy of Ukrainian terminology,into the forefather ofUkrainian national historiography.

47 For a discussionof theimpact of Mickiewicz'spoetry on thePolish, Lithuanian and Belarusiannational revivals, see TimothySnyder, The Reconstructionof Nations: Poland, Ukraine,Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 (New Haven and London: Yale UniversityPress, 2003) 29-43,281-283.

CanadianSlavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes Vol. XLVIII,Nos. 3-4,September-December 2006

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:45:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions