CEU eTD Collection PROGRESSIVES KIEVAND THE CLUBOFRUSSIANNATIONALISTS (1908- UKRAINE OR MALORUSSIA? THE SOCIETYUKRAINE ORMALORUSSIA? THE OF UKRAINIAN In partial fulfillment oftherequirements forthe degree of Second Reader: Professor MarshaSiefert Supervisor:Professor AlexeiMiller CentralEuropean University History Department Budapest, Hungary Olha Olha Martynyuk Masters of Masters Arts Submitted to 1914) 2010 By CEU eTD Collection Author. the of permission written the bemade without not may instructions such with accordance librarian.form must of This page made.Further madein any a part copies such copies Author and lodged in Centralthe European Library. Details maybe obtained from the mayineither part, full beor given in with made by accordance only instructions the the Copyright in the text of this thesis rests with theCopyright Notice Author. Copies by any process, i CEU eTD Collection communities. ethnic itseparate as ahistory of anddepicting in of disintegration, terms its social processes viewing thenationality policy imperial Late of Russia as uniformly approachingrepressive, of a tradition levels. challenges work and The regional state at national activists of strategies the show to intended are public the to delivered and formed were they in which ways and arediscussed ofatlength cultural in groups agendas manner.these a comparative The place editions.social printed andThe political,their pagesof on which took the other press Society of Ukrainian Progressives,Kiev during 1908-1914.Two The rivaling Kiev groups, Club of Russian Nationalists the and shaped their national projects in the process of debate, This thesis deals with the interaction between Russian and Ukrainian nationalists in nationalists Ukrainian and Russian between interaction the with deals thesis This Abstract ii CEU eTD Collection simply the best. the simply Imperial Russiagavea greatchap birth Sergeyto Rakhmaninov whosePiano#2isConcerto considerable supportin conductingLast, butnot research. this leastI am happy Late that Osipchuk and My itlot. Svitlana a appreciate colleagues Yaroslav deed, I provided Zatyliuk to my friend and colleague Yuriy Chepela who has alwaysbeen eager tohelp with word and alwaysbeen communication thoughtful; our maximized Special mycreative output. thanks Alla Myfriends Martynyuk-Medvetska. from Kyiv, Anna Khvyl’ and OlhaZavediya,have andhelped alot with translation the quotes. of Professor Karl Hall opened my eyes on a number of extremely exciting topics in the history, much needed, and importantwhose comments forand werevery this suggestions work. Many thanks to Professor Marsha Siefert, who gave me alot of inspiration when it was Hehasduring my past. year, academic work this shapedmy guided andthinking. greatly through time. I am happy to have Professor Alexei Miller who navigated me in the ocean of This wouldwork beimpossible moral without financial and support of my mother A historical istext just asmall which relic a scholar brings from his long journey Acknowledgements iii CEU eTD Collection BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 85 ...... 84 APPENDIX ...... 80 CONCLUSION CHAPTER 4. POLITICAL STRATEGIES AND THE MALORUSSIAN QUESTION...... 47 IMPLICATIONS...... 64 INTERPRETATIONS5: THE CHAPTER OF CULTURAL HERITAGE PRACTICAL AND THEIR COMPOSITION, AND INTELLECTUAL BACKGROUND...... 31 SOCIAL POLITICAL FRAMEWORK, SOCIETY OF 3: PROGRESSIVES: CHAPTER UKRAINIAN SOCIAL COMPOSITION AND INTELLECTUAL FOUNDATIONS...... 17 CLUB THE KIEV OF 2. POLITICAL RUSSIAN NATIONALISTS:CHAPTER FRAMEWORK, CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE 6 OVERVIEW...... 1 INTRODUCTION...... 5.6. 5.5. 5.4. 5.3. 5.2. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.1. 5.1. 3.4. 3.3. 3.1. 3.1. 2.4. 2.3. 2.2. 2.1. A T T T T T T T S M P K ‘ S P ‘ S P R K ACRED RELIMINARY RELIMINARY NOTES OCIAL OLITICAL OCIAL OLITICAL FRAMEWORK OLITICAL HE MONUMENT OF HE HE INSIDER LEVEL HE INSIDER HE REGIONAL LEVEL HE IMPERIAL LEVEL HE IMPERIAL HE HE Table ofcontents IEV IEV AS F AZEPA ADA IEVLIANIN ROCK VSROCK G F B OUNDATION OF ’ EGINNINGS OF OF THE EGINNINGS ENIUS ENIUS OF AND C C , “A S M OMPOSITION AND OMPOSITION OMPOSITION AND OMPOSITION PACE VS F M AZEPIANS ’ P RAMEWORK S ANDTHE ERSONAL AT O C P E E H OTHER OF OTHER G OGOL D ...... 51 T OWNTOWN ...... 48 ARAS TUP , ...... 59 ANDTHE ...... 55 T C , HINK AND THE : : A : OMMITMENT OF OMMITMENT K S B T LL AND HEVCHENKO AS HEVCHENKO A ETWEEN IEV HE S S S HEVCHENKO OCIAL OCIAL R T Q ANK OF USSIAN C P ...... 73 N UESTION OF LUB OF LUB OLITICAL T EW REASON OF P B B ROSPECTS ASE OF R LACK C R USSIA ITIES R USSIAN Y ...... 71 USSIAN C EVHEN H IRCUMSTANCES OF IRCUMSTANCES “A R P ...... 66 ” UNDREDS UNDREDS AND EASANT AND AS A AS AND EASANT USSIAN AND A AND : S UTONOMY iv B N HEVCHENKO ETWEEN N ATIONALISTS C ATIONALISTS HYKALENKO S N TRONGHOLD OF TRONGHOLD ATIONALISM ” I AND NTELLIGENTSIA NTELLIGENTSIA AND R ...... 68 ADICAL ...... 26 98...... 31 1908 M R ...... 44 ...... 17 USSIAN EMBER OF EMBER ...... 22 L R IBERALS USSIAN C ONSTITUTIONAL I NTELLIGENTSIA P ...... 18 N EASANTRY ATIONALISM L ...... 38 IBERALS ...... 76 ...... 65 ...... 34 CEU eTD Collection Kiev: Intergroup relations in Late Impeial Associational Life”, provide a more sophisticated vision of interethnic cooperation in Kiev: Natan M.Yekelchyk, Meir, “Jews, and Russians in Narys istorii Ukrainy: formuvannia modernoi ukrains’koi natsii XIX-XX stolittia intelihentsiia na rubezhi XIX-XX stolit: sotsial’no-politychnyi portret Ukrainian QuestionRussia, in 1904-12,” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University,1991; H.V. Kas’’ianov, Keller (Edmonton: The Institute Press, 1939); Olga Andriewsky, “The Politics of National Identity: The (Olsztyn: Wy of California Press, 2004);Tadeusz Zienkiewicz, ideologies and practices. In this case the ultimate success of each national program is seen national program of each success the ultimate case Inthis practices. and ideologies this may approach inresult underestimating therole oflocal politics in creating new tothe historian.by biasesthe of related views Second, present day maypolitical becaused appear as having only a single objective. The tendency to concentrate on a single actor can purposes may haveactors: what hadmultiple of alsointentions of different misinterpretation ignore thisnational between interaction groups. This mayFirst, to tends approach leadthe to mobilize populations. used to they that attempts the guidedthat nationalist and activists motivations real of number a overshadows it However, spheres. cultural and preconditions social their development, movements national of logic inner the of understanding some Benjamin Nathans, Benjamin Century,” Twentieth of the Turn the Kyiv at in Life “Jewish Khiterer, 1 Kiev” “Jewish and Kiev,” “Russian Kiev,” “Ukrainian Kiev”, “Polish sub-communities: of separate see itas aconglomerate to Kiev tend imperial late of historians because is this Partly, poorly. quite investigated is movements nationalism inKiev in the period between 1905 and 1914,the relation between these two Michael F. Hamm, Although there is a considerable amount of literature on Ukrainian and Russian Introduction Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation Ī sza szko Beyond the Pale: The Jewish Encounter withImperial Late Russia Kiev: A Portrait, 1800-1917 á a pedagogiczna w Olsztynie, 1990); Doroshenko, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). Bookswhich Polskie (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993); Victoria 1 Ī ycie literackie w Kijowiew latach 1905-1918 Slavic Review 1 . This approach in time . This offered approach due (Kyiv: Lybid,1993); Iaroslav Hrytsak, Ukraina moderna History of the Ukraine 65,3 65,3 (Autumn,2006): 475-501 (Kyiv: 2000); Heneza, Serhy (Berkeley: University 10 (2006): 74-94; , trans. Hanna Ukrains’ka CEU eTD Collection 2003). and Germans: a Local History of Bohemian Politics, 1848-1948 3 Press, 2008). Nationalism: Essays in theMethodology ofHistorical Research Zapadnom krae v epokhu Velikikh reform the 1860s,” Mikhail Dolbilov, “Russification and the Bureaucratic Mind in the Russian Empire’s Northwestern2007). Regionin Russians: Meaning and Practice of Russification in Lithuania and Belarus after Frontier, 1863-1914 which was marked both andimitation.which by markedboth placewas contest The which between debate took competition, of in circumstances the weredeveloped projects national two thatthe implies fact This Empire. Russian of region Southwestern the of Ukrainians/Malorussians/Russians group: same the mutually target andto objectives, appealedexclusive had acknowledgeboth nationalisms these that of to importance is of forces.a crucial It be in comprehendedin of Kievcannot separately, the period 1908-1914 politicalas discrete 2 nationalist groupsplays important an role in forging national projects. different between interaction the and vital, and complex are identities national that noted be should It process. in this states transient ignores it Apparently, formation. nation of character the gradual denigrates ethnical communities separate history of the Fourth, open. remains actors different interplay of of character andthe agency of political question consistent. even repressive—or uniformly was Russia imperial late order. A imperial seriesephemeral the with struggle constant the as of depicted often is recentcommunity the of studies have challenged Third,community, history the inborn, of group. the qualities essential as asequenceof but the assumption not asavictory in local resolvingand establishingpowerover the conflicts quotidian that nationality policy in Anexample of compromisesuch isBudweisers question in Bohemia: Jeremy King, Theodore R. Weeks, R. Theodore In this research I will endeavor to show that the Ukrainian and Russian nationalisms Kritika 5.2 (Spring 2004):245-271; A.A.Komzolova, (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1996);Darius Staliunas, Nation and State inLate Imperial Russia: Nationalism and Russification on theWestern (Moscow:Nauka, 2005); Alexei Miller, 2 (New York: Central European University European (New York:Central (Princeton, N.J. : PrincetonUniversity Press, Politika samoderzhaviia v Severo- 1863 (New York: Rodopi, The Romanov Empireand 3 Budweisers into Czechs 2 Nevertheless, the Nevertheless, Making CEU eTD Collection primary schools, the project of building monument to national poet Taras Shevchenko, the Shevchenko, Taras poet national to monument building of project the schools, primary undertakings, suchas of project languagethe Ukrainian the in as instruction a medium of separatist. intrigue,” “Polish of ideas. nation the that of national isaproduct andUkrainian Claiming Polish hierarchy of their enemies, the members of the club made large efforts to combat the spread position in the Jewstop the the since occupied characteristic, strikingits most defining was anti-Semitism Although Stolypin. Petr prime-minister Russian of politics national the right-wing elitist the from coming obstacles of number a with met nationalists Ukrainian 1908 from Starting nationalism. Russian of center the as Kiev of image the to contributed subsequently which movements, right-wing by dwarfed was in Kiev movement Liberationist so-called groups broader only butalsolimited within of eliteamong groups, population. However, the not national ideas daily newspaper. Ukrainian disseminate to an opportunity All gave this of cultural and education societies of “Prosvita”, and a number of periodicals including one ( parliament imperial of convocation the and rights political demanded system, autocratic the of authority the undermined that movement the into intellectuals and professionals shaped their and,apparently, agendas amongsupport population. Southwest attracted Russian nationalists Ukrainian and printed on editions pagesof the their other pressand gained the Revolution after infactions of 1905 were and first the second nationalists Ukrainian that achievements important most the Among movements. national Duma ). By the same token, the alleviation of legal restrictions opened new vistas for newvistas opened legal restrictions of alleviation the By ). sametoken, the The Revolution of inThe workers, briefly Russianempire Revolution consolidated 1905 of Kiev KKRN Club ofRussianNationalists (KKRN). more orless the impeded successfully promotion majorof Ukrainian KKRN dismissed all the cultural and political ambitions of its leaders as leaders its of ambitions political and cultural the all dismissed 3 It wasan organizationsupported that Dumas , the work CEU eTD Collection external. national movements, often abstruse and malicious, was often perceived as alien and recipients remain tended political to untouched byimposed agendas. The languageof the may beassumed, that lines.naturally, It ethnic this was, along a society of segregation national anonymouslydebate andare palpable evenin present-day the politics. The resultof of later stages acluster These ofmarkers. markersentered groups and protagonist antagonist the to attribution of a story is in Kiev nationalists Russian and Ukrainian between ofinteraction Thestory issues. aesthetic and cultural agrarian, social, political, range of disintegration. ethnic tendency the tochallenge to Itry writeapproach this Using confrontation. simple the than rather imitation politicaland contest of historymatter a often was which movements, nationalist Russian and of Ukrainian Late Russian Empire of development dynamic and a dialectical inquire Itry into to in newspapers debate these as a narrative of classpress, being heavily censored,and used this fact to assert its significance. Byinvestigation of the newspaperUkrainian daily first the contrary, the On society. in the position economic and political strong newspaper Russian Empire, and thus, posit themselves as political reformists. nationalists to accuse to nationalists proliferation “Prosvita”of etc. networks, This gave foran opportunity Ukrainian Both groups widelyBoth groups used for theirideas. press propagating the The dailymonarchist Aiming at political support and mass-mobilization, both Aiming anda wide atpoliticalboth support groupsappealed mass-mobilization, to Kievlianin had long experience in distribution, a well-established audience and a and audience awell-established long indistribution, hadexperience Rada KKRN stillgain had its to and position, authors, readers. The Ukrainian of being an agent of the reactionary, authoritarian regime of 4 CEU eTD Collection the Ukrainian transliteration Ukrainian“Kyiv”isthe used.transliteration inused only the name“Kiev Club Russian of Nationalists.” Butwhen city talking aboutthe forUkrainian “Kiev” practical willbe spelling transliterated according reasons.Theword to Ukrainian.according to The names andtitlesof and figures historical be will places names wouldbe translated according Russian to spelling, and Ukrainian nationalists’ – where the term can be used by both groups, I will put both terms with a slash. cases the In groups. both of views the better reveal helps it however, text, the into relativity discussing position the of Russian nationalists. This brings vaguenessa certain and when “Russia” or “Malorussia” term the use I will and “Ukraine”, term the and use discourse their follow will I nationalists Ukrainian of position the reveal to that means This in Inmypaper which situations. Iwill terms also usethese depending onwhom I talk about. and terms these used who see to important is it thus nationalists, Ukrainian and Russian the between was abone terms of of contention these interpretation meaning The and clarified. nearly ceased. andinteraction changes, their I investigate, emerged. In1914,whenWorld War many Ibegan, went through these groups Similarly, I will use transliteration of the names and titles. Russian nationalists’ Russian titles. and names the of transliteration use will I Similarly, be needsto “Russian” and “Malorussian,” “Ukrainian,” The useof terms the The time ofmy frame is 1908-1914.In1908 research the politicaltwo which groups, 5 CEU eTD Collection (However, only if we consider theRevolution of 1905 to play the role of a Bourgeois Revolution). 6 85-119 5 Composition of Patriotic Groups among the Smaller European Nations, Ernest Gellner’s argument is that nationalism is called to fulfill the need of industrial society industrial of need the fulfill to is called nationalism is that argument Gellner’s Ernest in of1905revolution. theintelligentsia immediate aftermath the second stage entered 44 book nationalism within from transition society traditional themodern. into Hroch Miroslav his works of Miroslav Hroch, benedict Anderson, andErnst Gellner. All of these scholars placed this research. to be they applied how can known theories of nationalism,highlight some of their most important elements, and state when applied to other cases. alterations For the considerable have may purposewhich combinations, of historical this certain on based workoften is I will discuss only the most well- between the first and the second stage, and second first the the between of a mass national movement. “C,” rise –the agitation, of patriotic period “B,”–the interest, scholarly of “A,” –aperiod national work of the intelligentsia in Central and Eastern Europe. It consists of three stages: This means that according to Hrochian scheme Ukrainian movement belongs to a “disintegrated” type. “disintegrated” a to belongs movement Ukrainian scheme Hrochian to according that means This Roman Shporliuk, “Ukraine: From an Imperial Periphery to aSovereign State,” Miroslav Hroch, Miroslav Social PreconditionsNational RevivalinEurope of The thinking of a majority of scholars of nationalism had been influenced by seminal by influenced been had nationalism of scholars of majority a of thinking The it of understanding our since impossible is nationalism of theory universal A single, LiteratureChapter 1. Frameworkand Overview Theoretical SocialPreconditions of National Revival inEurope. Acomparative Analysis of the Social 4 for vagueborder the scheme Although wascriticized this 5 I will assume in this paper that the Ukrainian the that paper in this assume will I 6 elaborated a periodization of the (Cambridge, 1983). P. 23 Daedalus 126, #3 (1997): 6 CEU eTD Collection Himka, Roman Solchanyk. (Cambridge, Mass., 2000), 611-619 and Eastern Europe. Essays in honor of Roman Shporliuk Andrzey Walicki, “Ernest Gellner and ‘Constructivistthe Theory of Nation,” Articulation of the Nation, 9 Verso, 1983). 7 for proper is necessary actors political between different interaction of the an analysis the two, setlimitations and directed the process of imagining community. and imagined howthelocal including theirnationalists between projects, astruggle context, position between these did approaches,show how and try both Russianto and Ukrainian began. nationalism of mobilization the before there show that there were to attempted who scholars, of by anumber challenged limitswas imagination nearly unrestrained to this imaginationfreely, almost of in theprocess were constructed identities ideanational However, the that and that the buildingwhich altered and understandingreligious of power elements of ofcultural identity. blocks were alreadyto be imagined. This process could not take place without some cultural transformations Ukrainian and Russian nationalistsplace took over the control of educational recourses. between battlefield main the chapters, subsequent in shown be will it As importance. society,the of homogenization is of serves which particular culture, standardized Gellner’s in sponsored education onthecentrally emphasis sustaining acodified be congruent.” should unit national and political the that holds which principle, political a “is Nationalism protected. be politically to was which culture, codified a common in 8 Alexandr J. Motyl, “Inventing invention: The Limits of National Identity Formation,” in Benedict Anderson, Ernest Gellner, Ernest In this regard the “situational approach,” elaborated by elaborated that approach,” Alexei Miller, “situational the stipulates In thisregard has it community apolitical becomes before anation Benedict argues that Anderson Nations and Nationalism. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. eds. Ronald GrigorSuny and Michael D. Kennedy Arbor,(Ann 1999): 57-75; (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1983) 7 , eds. Zvi Gitelman, Lubomyr Hajda, John-Paul 9 In this study I will take a middle Cultures and Nations of Central Intellectuals and the (London: 8 7 CEU eTD Collection 11 (Budapest-New CentralYork: EuropeanPress, 2008): 18 10 Olga Ukrainian originscholar of Andriewsky, entitles period of Latethe Romanov Empireis the indissertation published by 1991 a Canadian formation. identity of systems complex in a connectedness” arehelpfulinroles ascribing different thateach individual or group played and “groupness, commonality and location,” social “self-understanding categorization,” and “identification like choice Notions terms. of cautious amore recommend Cooper.Frederick by and Brubaker of“identity”Rogers they simply Instead using term recently elaborated self-understanding long-lasting a and distinctiveness sameness, internal substantialmisleading term the onthe“identity,”criticism usage of which presupposes account into take will we this In disintegration. and integration both of processes depicting agendas, long-standing through examination and problemsof management, through level. imperial and local on the both at forces political both Ukrainian Russianand Nationalists’ successultimate onthecombination depended of their activity were dividedseveral into factions, which is important for this research since actors.” other andof activities contexts to the unveilingto including logic,the the subjective logic, of their behavior own and the reactions and interaction of their process the assuch to actors from the shifts focus“the that implies, understanding of nationalizingthe in imperial processes the peripheries. This approach Rogers Brubaker and CooperFrederick, “Beyond ‘Identity’,” Alexei Miller, The most elaborate work which deals with the Ukrainian-Russian encounter in the in encounter Ukrainian-Russian the with deals which work elaborate most The Political modernization will be put in the context of local social and economic The Romanov Empire and Nationalism. Essays inthe Methodology ofHistorical Research 11 10 8 As Miller suggests, all actors in the course of Theory and Society The Politics of National Identity: Politics of The The 29 (2000): 28-64 . CEU eTD Collection diss., Harvard University, 1991 12 Ukrainian Question inRussia,1904-12 plutocracy, 1905 the lead-up Jew-baiting. to In the level provoked whichonthe practical targeting program a political developed intellectuals extreme ideologically Jewish ethniccharacterized by indifference to In1880sa and social coterie of distinctions. non- establishedin a city’s life. setThis aninclusivegroup tonein upperranksthe of society, Jewish was of consistingentrepreneurs, disproportionally 1870s adiversecapitalist elite, 1863-1907” “ Hillis C. and Russiancommunity. this,limited to on more ofimagining process contrary the convoluted a much was Ukrainian not were relations latter. show will these that the I Inthis try of initiative work to from the Nationalists is focused on the administrative restrictions, which were imposed on the former relationship between theregardnot themselves assuch.by could eventhough Secondly,they Ukrainians, the Society of Ukrainian Progressives national historiography,tradition of waspopulated Southwest the that presupposes thus and and the Kiev Club Firstly,criticismbe work. this should expressed about Olga withinAndriewsky works the of Russian factionliberals.Ukrainian nationalistsRussianand However, of the right points of two between for relationship itsencounterof the isimportant research this Particularly important facts detailminute history the of Ukrainian national movement, and also itcomprises some very about how Ukrainian nationalists treated other Russian political forces. Olga Andriewsky, Politics“The of National Identity: Ukrainian The Question inRussia, 1904-12,” Ph.D. A number of burning issues in was evoked a recentdissertation by Faith US scholar Between Empire andNation:Urban Politics,Community, andViolence in Kiev, . In processthe of urbanizationrapid industrialization and Kievof in 1860- . 12 This work is important for it observes with a with observes it for important is work This 9 CEU eTD Collection though in being though andlocal state represented preferrednottomeddleauthorities, with and by promoted state local authorities. movement, Membersof even Ukrainiannational the liberalstowards by forth setting ideathe of sustainable urbanand social development measures vindicated necessity the of 1905.Indeed,repressive this group after in period the claims the author. their connecttheir quotidian localizedhighly and ability issues”to agendasto political – nationalists was Kiev due to down came cities, not imperial majority the tofor the superior logic of the ideas that they peddled, but rather to the Jewish question Jewish the 16 15 segregation. groups I will examine in this paper belong to the kind of political forces that ultimately aim at national of the quotidian character of ethnic interaction andsubsistence account of sensitive external politicalvery a factors. No provides doubt,the article This group. the within nationalities all to teachers) of Jewish number and was implemented in contempt of generally benevolent attitude of its leaders (among which there was a special divisionfor the Jewishwomena andestablished of girls Womenwhich in 1914. Protection the for TheSociety Jewish Russian of the chapter Branch Kiev was the case a initiated is by segregation outside activists political forces and events of major to disintegrate potential the social lifeillustrate alongof cases national anumber However, manner. lines. Thepeaceful bright example inarelatively of ethnicities ethnic other (associations, societies, clubs, sector and charities), voluntary e.g. Jews individual, and foundstate an between outlet ground forpoliticalof middle level on the energiesthat claims, and author interactedThe 1905. with Life by Natan Meir 14 13 activists. Polish and Ukrainian, Russian, between as well focuses it forgingInstead, on betweenintellectualsand new relationships working class,as Russian history of of Empire asanarrative political Late disintegration. andclass ethnic the work deserve special attention. The dissertation challenges a tendency depictto national and this of insights methodological Some mass-movements. right-wing of emergence the fueled revolution authority’sthe maintaincollapse, began whichsubsequently capacity to order to Ibid, 30 Ibid, 25 Ibid, 4. Although the Jewish Question is left behind the scope of present research, it is worth to mention anarticle mention to worth itis research, ofpresent scope the behind left is Question Jewish the Although ” It touches upon the problem of the ambiguous status of Jewry in civic society of Kiev in the period after period the in Kiev of society civic in of Jewry status ambiguous of the problem the upon It touches ” Jews, Ukrainians, and Russians in Kiev: Intergroup Relations in Late Imperial Associational 16 itholds onlyforAs regardsthisstatement, Russian true the nationalists 14 is regarded asasort filterof whichthrough political issues, common 10 15 . Moreover, “the ultimate success of success ultimate “the . Moreover, 13 Another important point is that is point important Another CEU eTD Collection questions, which were majorKCRN,left concern of werealso behind the scopeof the hierarchy. Thirdly, andimportance of a major in investigation,Ukrainianthis the and Polish issuescurrent mere than interests protection in andhigh-status of agricultural social which rangeinterests abroader of aspect of overrural signifies theirprevailed activity professionals.aristocracy, Secondly, urban educated shabby-genteel nouveau-riche, the and firstly,modern change, becauseincluded party not onlylandowners,but the also alot of comply with to force obliged conservative apurely thisas organization treat to mistake However,intheir socially it and Government. theDuma status privileged the would bea waysbook in which Nationalistthe lobbied their Party economic interests and defended hadorganizeland-owning aristocrats to politically. Subsequently, discusses inhis Edelman modernizingforces. wouldlonger Because the nostate all them defendandsupport at times, economic and had political domination been challenged long before 1905by a variety of nobility’s landed The borderlands. western the from gentry Russian was base social party’s in Duma. State the activity of group this his Accordingview, to Nationalist Russian the pioneering book, pioneering oblivioncondemned formore than half a to century. Edelman published a 1980 Robert In KKRNmembers by wereassassinated of in organizationBolsheviks 1919, the was 68 After movements. national Ukrainian and in Russian role pivotal their of spite in quotidian issues and existingthe attacked state of things onamore abstract level. As regards the KKRN and the TUP, these groups attracted little scholarly attention little TUP,the scholarly attracted and KKRN the groups As these regards Gentry Politics on the Eve of Russian Revolution, on theEveof Gentry Politics 11 which touched upon which touched upon the CEU eTD Collection natsionalnogo soyuza. 18 (Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Yale University, 2009) Hillis ideologii Vserosiyskogo natsionalnogo soyuza. University Press, 1980; Kotsiubinskiy, D.A. 17 research. Collapse of The Ideology of Russian National League). Russian National of Collapse ofTheIdeology natsionalnogo soyuza Nationalismat (Russian of cent. The Beginning XX TheBirthand Igibel’ stoletiya:natsionalizm Rozhdenie vnachale XX ideologii Vserosiyskogo KKRN, totheideologicaldedicated of book aspect a Kotsiubinsky published culture, and wanted to be intrinsically Russian, with their own historic path. nationalistsin Kievby samethe token were inspiredby Western traditions and political modernity.” and Russian tradition “between as those be can characterized often nationalists imbedded inhisis text, thatthese ambiguities and contradictions in agenda the Russian of andright to left. the The thing whichfailed emphasize, author the to butwhich is implicitly the forces to political influence of other underfactions the came anddifferent disintegrated nationalists Russian 1911 in assassination his after soon but Stolypin, Petr leader their of charisma the on founded was unity political Their socialism. or liberalism monarchism, ideological with like stances doctrine, compete other a uniform and coherent which could All-Russian National Russian authorconcludes that Union, the nationalistsfailed produce to in the allies their and KKRN of leaders by produced texts political the of overview ample research of ideologicalthe background nationalism of Russian in 1907-1917. Giving an Kotsiubinskiy, D.A. Edelman, Robert. Edelman, Between Empire and Nation: Urban Politics, Community, andViolence inKiev, 1863-1907 On the recent rise of interest in imperial right-wing parties Russian scholar Daniil scholar Russian parties right-wing in imperial interest of rise recent the On 17 GentryPolitics on the Eve of Russian Revolution. Moskva: ROSSPEN, 2001 ROSSPEN, Moskva: Russkiy natsionalizm nachalev XX stoletiya: Rozhdenie I gibel’ ideologii Vserosiyskogo Russkiy natsionalizm v nachale XXstoletiya: Rozhdenie Igibel’ Moskva: ROSSPEN, 2001; the critic of this book: Faith C. 12 18 So far this is the most profound New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers New Jersey: New Brunswick, Russkiy CEU eTD Collection (Princeton, N.J. :Princeton University Press,2003). how Budweis/Budejovicestory disintegrated into rivaling society two of national was Bohemian Politics, 1848-1948 can be seen, therefore, as a final stage of the struggle for land. KKRN of activity anti-Polish The borderlands. inWestern gentry Russian towards policy in 1909introduction of Polishshould intrigue. It bementioned also thatitis Stolypin KKRNand Petr that triggered connotations used by Russian nationalists in claiming Ukrainian nationalism as a product of of range this for reveals as ita wide research valuable is hostile. Thebook and particularly inThis, its turn, in generated Russianthe round press another imaginingof the Pole as alien was envisaged byimperial governmentas abeRussianness.category pulled to Great the to peasantry, destiny on the of hada serious impact the landcentury over the struggle which appeared to be weak economiccircumvent laws the oftenfueled bureaucraticwhich corruption; newcomers Russian the executives andhowever, agents limited assimilatory success. The Polish nobilityof found numerousRussification. ways to for Russian nobility. for and allowances Poles purchase andsale had, Theenerprise Nevertheless, from WesternPolishthe nobility on estate real included restriction borderlands. projects The half overview of imperial policy, which Polish the after uprising in 1963 aimed ateliminating the doesn’t touch upon issuethe of Ukrainian-Russian relationships la terre enUkraine, LesPolonais 1863-1914: socio-ethniques,et lesconflits 19 Jeremy King, A by book Jeremy King, It is important to mention a book by French historian Daniel Beauvois. Budweisers into Czechs and Germans: a Local History of Bohemian Politics, 1848-1948 zemstvo 19 presents an interesting parallel case. The author depicts a depicts case.Theauthor parallel aninteresting presents Budweisers intoCzechs andGermans: a LocalHistory of in Westernthe borderlands with a highly protectionist 13 . Itprovides a broad even though it though even La bataillede CEU eTD Collection and scholar Ukrainian language in the direction of accentuating linguistic gap. accentuating languageinthedirection of and Ukrainian scholar As aresult, dialect of Ukrainian Russian, which national leadersprovoked movement develop literary to a as considered was Malorussian cultures. and nations their of distinctness the prove to differentbelonginglinguistic to so wasno groups, there for movementleaders national need than a couple ofhundreds of inhabitants.thousands German and Czech arelanguages less no andincludes borders noclear with territory isavast Malorussia of thousands, dozens 19 in population with region small relatively a is Budweis Whereas inthe andnationalisms areas. formodern understandingpolitics which crucial are 1914). organizationsnationalist predominantly weregrounded in region Malorussian the (1905- Nazism found alarge withinsupport the Germanpopulation of in Budweis Russian 1930s; consecutiveidentities.the years morepeople corresponding On accepted otherhand,the in that so satisfied, were demands national Ukrainian and Czech hand, one On triumphed. in Malorussia/Ukraine nationalisms Russian and Ukrainian and in Budweis, nationalisms language instruction in of primary schools). As both Czech a result, and German battles overthe instance, a confrontation level (for a local on ledThis radicalized. to level.grass-root interethnic Within within ageneration) decades (or differencesa couple of Czech werepurposes. and imported nationalappear atand movements Ukrainian didnot the everyday for legitimate as recognized were Czech Malorussian and however regions, nomajor conflicts on ethnic basis. The German and Russian languages were dominantin the – Czechgroups German. Both Budweis andMalorussia bilingual and in were 19 In spite of the striking similarities of the two cases, there is a number of differences, of is anumber there cases, two the of similarities striking the In spite of 14 th cent. numbering a couple of th cent. with CEU eTD Collection by members the of the TUP, atleasta dominant is partofit. It important toacknowledge inspired or accepted were questions of anumber towards views Chykalenko’s that assume will I far, ofmy purposes research, So the for situation. contemporary the knowledge of methodological andadetailed an elaborated both approach a historian,requires and guisehis of personal observations. interpretation The of diary this is aserious challenge for the under in thetext imbedded the of history TUP is implicitly the Therefore, colleagues. the same time he was afraid that the police might confiscate his writing and use it against his to this organization. related wrote adiaryinwhichhediscussedeverything Chykalenko At Yevhen nationalists Ukrainian the of leader the this Knowing documents. official any fewif left Progressives Ukrainian Theof Society Incontrast, wererecorded. and discussions documents important most their of all in which yearbooks official their historian a for left Ukrainian milieu. The Kiev Club of Russian Nationalistsfunctioned and legally openly, thus and from Russian stem which the sources the is with work. asymmetry There some poetry. in early 19 in early signified and before used little was term later The place). its found also Galicia term this of German.however,name by “Ukraine” “Malorussia,” dome The the was superseded(under Czech version version Bud Czech Budweis/Bud hampered the proliferation of movementUkrainian within Malorussians. Malorussianimposed perceivedasalienand Ukrainian artificially; printed consequently this A few remarksshould bemade set aboutthe of sources primary which in thisI use th cent. a region on the north-east of Malorussia. It was popularized inromantic was popularized It of Malorussia. on aregion north-east the cent. Ɵ jovice remainednames of the a province with onlythe difference thatthe Ɵ jovice became dominant as the Czech nationalism won the won over as theCzechnationalism dominant became jovice 15 CEU eTD Collection had enoughpowertoimpose his viewson his community. hefinancedthat and managedthe onlydailynewspaper of nationalists,Ukrainian and thus 16 CEU eTD Collection influences of influences cosmopolitanism of and anti-Russian, anti-government, andanti-social teachings, stated in the first yearbooklocal, concern. affiliated questions. had it aspecial, As organizations, comparedto Also, of the club, theiradvanced intellectual ideas, and formedgoal the agenda on a number of political andwas social “to struggle leaders, public with Petersburg supplied that force was a political well-organized role. It againsta pioneering played the Nationalists Russian of Club Kiev pernicious Union,” National All-Russian “The Russian nationalists managed to form the second biggest faction in the Parliament. landlordsfavored andmerchants over restraining and peasants,workers bourgeoisie), petty dismissed ascounterproductive, and the Election Law was inJunechanged 1907(which in points Stoplypin’s andhis supporters’ program. After IandII State Dumas were key were the Duma Government the with State the of cooperation close and aspirations modernization of industry, agriculture and financial system, confrontation to socialist livelihood, in state of spheres all interests national Russian of Theprotection politics. newly emerged Russian nationalist organizations across the Empire served as a basis of number with other Stolypin,a andtogether Petr for prime-minister Russian of auspices his Framework, Social Composition and Intellectual Foundations Intellectual and Composition Social Framework, 2.1. The Beginnings of the Kiev Club of Russian Nationalists of Russian KievClub ofthe Beginnings 2.1. The Political Nationalists: ofRussian 2. TheKievClub Chapter In the work of nationalist of In organizations,Russian work whichin the 1911 into consolidated The Kiev Club of Russian Nationalists (KKRN)was founded in 1908 under the 17 CEU eTD Collection (Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1991).p. 228 Olga Andriewsky, 20 inpeopleRussian national statehood.” believethe who principles of primarily thestruggle againstPolish pressure andUkrainophilism support enemies in support of state the of incase a further deterioration international situation. the Herzegovina in1908,reinforced asuspicion Ukrainian that nationalistsand Polish would and Bosnia of annexation the by caused relations, Russian-Austrian of deterioration the of inThirdly,increased period 1905-1907. the theirinfluenceconsiderably meetings, thus revolution, which gave an foropportunity mass agitation mass-media through and public Polish nationaland Ukrainian movements largely benefitted from gains the of 1905 the the Secondly, authority. imperial the of concerns major the of one been had nobility Polish area with contested a largenumber influence of andJews;the strugglePoles againstthe ethnically an been centuries for had Empire Russian the of borderlands South-Western the Ukrainian nation. the of be domain the eventually, and, culture to distinct and tradition historical a separate had claimed nationalists Ukrainian which region same the – Russia) South (or Russia Little regardedas intraditionally region the mostnationalism active was Russian that importance Sbornik kluba russkih natsionalistov. Radical Liberals Radical and Hundreds Black Between framework: 2.2. Political The Kiev Club of Russian Nationalists identified their political stance as nationalist, as stance political their identified Nationalists Russian of Club Kiev The This intensifying of This intensifyinginterethnic of was conflict by factors. Firstly,a number caused of The Politics of National Identity: The Ukrainian Question in Russia, 1904-1912 (Kiev: Tipografiya KushnerovaK°, i 1909). P.5. Translationfrom: 18 , andunify finally to 20 It is of critical CEU eTD Collection group, which saved Russia from Polish invasion at the beginning of XVI century. ofXVI beginning the at invasion Polish from Russia saved which group, eponymous the from derives Hundred” “Black name the In fact, influences. western by contaminated” “not 23 Olga Andriewsky, constitutional members regime, KKRNof vindicated modernization the of Russia following Russia, parties resentment institutionsdeclared of western and in foundideal their pre-Petrine became the most striking characteristic of the Black Hundreds. Secondly, while radical which sadly pogroms, Forexample,KKRNneverengagedinJewish political strategies. right organization,mass-oriented useddifferent thus and than a was anelitistHundreds rather far Firstly,more becomesKKRN the tenuous. question Black KKRNunlike the the parties. right radical with in cooperation campaign inKKRN wagedtheir Duma IV 1912 elections tothe State the at Moreover, etc. Church, Orthodox Russian the of veneration deep a Russians,” for “Russia motto the anti-Semitism, right: radical the to features similar strikingly display Black leaders parties. Hundred of was anumberof A by KKRN also produced of listtexts there members its of roster in the and thus South-West, Russia’s of elements” patriotic “all isa number basedon of assumptions. As asupra-party uniteKKRNorganization, tended to position Hundreds. This asBlack regarded organizations, usually right radical alliance with 22 rorzdenie I gibel’ ideologii Vserossiyskogo natsionalnogo soiuza 21 historians, Soviet of literature. A ininterpretations research the numberhas different acquired and remains open political conservativetheiragenda moderately andof question Nevertheless, the right-wing. Which is Moscow Tsardom. The Black Hundreds considered this period special, because then Russia was Russia then because special, period this considered Hundreds Black The Tsardom. Moscow is Which Igor Omel’yanchuk, See the Soviet historiography chapter in Daniil Kotsiubinsky, 23 However, into political upon a deeperinquiry textsandpolitical history the of stood for inviolable autocracy and expressed deep dissatisfaction with for stood deepdissatisfaction the inviolable and expressed autocracy The Politics of National Identity Chernosotennoe dvirzenie v Rossiyskoy imperii (1901-1914) 21 as well as contemporary scholars ). 19 Russkiy natsionalizm v nachalestoletiya: (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2001) 22 tend to see KKRN in a close , (Kiev:MAUP, 2007); CEU eTD Collection 28 27 26 25 24 Russian Nationalistsjoined and theProgressive-National Group, Progressive the of Club Kiev the into itself renamed Nationalists Russian of Club Kiev WorldWarthe of I beginning the After Progressives. and Octobrists with rapprochement towards course a took Demchenko, Vsevolod and Shulgin, Vasiliy Savenko, Anatoliy KKRN, from leaders radical right, the with cooperation Balashev, for aclose agitated of disintegration within the party. While group of one led faction, national the byPetr successor Vladimir Kokovtsov did not rely on Russian nationalists, which caused processes its agenda. of course which reshaped Stolypin of Afterin thePetr assassination 1911, his importantly, KKRNwithin the period of many1908-1918 went through changes, in the Thirdly, interests. promote their most to as atool and Parliament the eagerly accepted and Europe”, into “openingwindow a for Great the Peter glorified experience, western the fusion with the right section of liberals. nations, Norway liberated. were nations,and Sweden Norway Slavic Italy; Greece, union and Germany of and causedreawakening This subsequently 1814, when “western nations liberated themselves from suppressionthe of Napoleon.” Petr wrote Ardashev, KKRN. member of a ourgeneration,” – head sightof within the came tothe nationalism, development which OM] indeed marks end the of age the cosmopolitanismof and beginningthe of age the of – Revolution [French Revolution Great “The Revolution. French the after Europe Western Ibid Cited in: Daniil Kotsiubinsky, Daniil Kotsiubinsky, The aim of the Bloc was to provide the army with everything necessary since the government failed to do it. Sbornik kluba russkih natsionalistov, Russian nationalists viewed nationalism as a set ideas,of which developed in Russkiy natsionalizm v nachale stoletiya, Russkiy natsionalizm v nachale stoletiya, 1911, 59-60 25 20 26 An active stage of nationalism began after began nationalism of stage active An 28 Most often Russian nationalists cited nationalists Russian often Most 41-43 . p. 77 24 which signified complete signified which 27 CEU eTD Collection obozrenie: 2008), p. && Russians in of millennium early the part merged first the Finns, with while LittleRussians that the difference between Russians ( Russians between difference the that largely inspired by old-school Ukrainophile historian Slavs, Nikolay Eastern Kostomarov. of ethnogeny the of vision his revealed he nation, Russian of part a constitute form ideaSupporting nation but donot of a distinct Ukrainians general that Club the brochure. in aseparate was published after soon which Ukrainians,” “Russians and 1913 Sikorsky indelivered alecture Kiev Club of Russian Nationalists under the title was developed byclubmember, physical anthropologistIvan and Sikorsky.psychiatrist In Vasiliy Shul’gin. wrote instincts, superior personality. nations Thus, those which are well-consolidated, provide theirmembers with unites people and warms their hearts,instinctive drives canbe by enhanced special sortof emotional training. Nationalism, which has a unique capacity to Whileenrich unconscious acts in the life of every person play much bigger therole than conscious, the inner world of a 32 31 30 29 Bismarck. von Otto and List Friedrich usually were figures political examples of Germany and England, less often – France and the USA, the exemplary spirit had contaminated the milieu of Russian reformists. of 1830s-early 1870s. internationalist Afterwards, Jewish, they andthought, arevolutionary writers,in historiansleaders andpolitical great Russia theirwere thought that predecessors Marina Mogil’ner, Ibid Daniil Kotsiubinsky, Sbornik kluba russkih natsionalistov An interestinginterpretation Darwinist unityof the Russians andof Little Russians nationalism. of interpretations Darwinist expressed KKRN also Some leadersof Homo imperii: Istoriia fizicheskoi antropologii v Rossii Russkiy natsionalizm v nachalestoletiya (Kiev: Tipografiya Kushnerova,1910), p. 39-40 velikorosy 31 21 ) and Little Russians lays in the fact that . 78 30 (Moscow, Novoe literaturnoe 29 Russian nationalists Russian 32 He explained CEU eTD Collection between 1911between number and1913 thetotal numbermembers by the of increased 78 persons, While Club. the of composition social in change uneven of tendency is a there However, requestedmembershipcards. status lowersocial with more andinfluence, more people in members its of almost 2.5 times. As political gainedpopularity theorganization and course of Kiev years the 1909-1913the increased Russian Club of number the Nationalists membersnumber of counted329,in 1910 -360, in 1911 –660,andin 1913 –738.In the the later. the parallel inevitably would group former ofthe dynamic the therefore case), the often very itis (as owner house a also is amerchant example, For interrelated. are table in the presented groups the because acknowledge, members indicated multiplesome often itemsVery while address. and others rank social would state only profession, the their ownership, about address. estate This real about data is important information included brief to A person fact. average this proves punctuation and orders word confused abbreviations, of variety 34 sloboda.org/antrop/sikorski03.html Acceess 15.01.2010 nazionalistov vKieve 7fevralia 1913 goda, 1911, for 1910, are available intheyearbooks and1913(see Table 1). also offers room for speculation, even though the rosters of club members with relevant data 33 strong state, and thus are destined to keep a creative alliance with Russians. nationhood (based individualism) on whereas Little Russiansareless ofbuildingcapable a flexiblemore andintelligent, though. This in resulted factRussians the that have astrong Russians gainedsuch features as a strongwill better self-control.and Little Russians were Finns mergence of creative with course Inthe features. moreSlavic original of preserved There is no doubt about the fact that members indicated their profession and social status on their own – the own their on status social and profession their indicated members that fact the about doubt no is There Ivan Sikorsky, “ Nationalism ofRussian Base Social and Composition 2.3. Social The question of social composition of the KKRN, as well as of their social base, Russkie I ukraincy. (Glava iz etnologicheskogo katehizisa): doklad v klube russkih ” (Kyiv,1913). http://www.velesova- 22 34 In1909the total 33 CEU eTD Collection (Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1991).p. 237. group Olga: Andriewsky, also points to this misunderstanding and notes, that in general railroad workers were extremely politicized Russian Revolution. ( Robert. Edelman, rolls.” club’s the on employees railroad ofsomany presence […] The party’s special relationship withRukhlov, now Minister of Communications, may also explainalthough the probably attracted by the club’s nationalism, may have beenincluded to pad the membership rolls. was logical that railroad men would play a role inKiev politics. The lower ranks of white-collar employees, 36 University Press, 1980), p. 89 35 demandfarmfor so “noblesthat produce, now forsake their could parasitic roles and increased the order neweconomic organize politically. hadto Simultaneously, a aristocrats wouldlonger noBecausethem state the defend andsupport land-owning at all times, haddomination been challengedlong before 1905by a variety modernizingof forces. political and economic nobility’s landed The borderlands. western the from gentry Russian remain by unclear. support railwaymen aconsiderable for reasons the Nevertheless, maintainof support of attacks leadership to rivals his the against Club. railwaymen in the in that 1913, when itssome intheClub, appeared tensions leader used Anatoliy the Savenko in nor in werenevervoicedyearbooks, press. the neither is interests theirevidence There and activity club the in role any barely play to seem they fact, In organization. inthe group interest dominant a were they that mean doesn’t this However, Railroad. Southwest the increased. membership. By samethenumberthe token, of railway employees and groups some other their dropped categories aforementioned representatives of thatthe decreased, whichmeans professors and teachers professions, liberal of representatives landowners, owners, of house Robert Edelman suggests some possible explanations: “Since Kiev was an important transportation center, it center, transportation important wasan Kiev “Since explanations: possible some suggests Edelman Robert Robert Edelman. According to Robert Edelman, the Russian Nationalist party’s social base wasThe largest category between in1910-1913 themembership rolls is employees of GentryPolitics on the Eve of Russian Revolution.( New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1980), p. 89. Olga Andriewsky The Politics of National Identity: The Ukrainian Question in Russia, 1904-1912 23 New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers New Jersey: New Brunswick, Gentry Politics on the Eve of Eve onthe Politics Gentry 36 35 CEU eTD Collection Duma from Kiev. from Duma construction, became a millionaire and gained tremendous popularity – in 1912 he was elected into State 41 27-30 40 development of late imperial Kiev. 39 1907 38 University Press, 1980), p. 89 Jewish corporations should not beJewish not thetask delegated should corporations of providing such city with amenities, factories. Russian Demchenko’s key was points pavingstones that in should be produced Russia andby Kiev’sfollowed Interestingly, of andexample. Petersburg one Moscow later on that one of the most active club members, successfully carried out aprogram streetof paving, so 37 producers”. agrarian become established group astrong in it, opposing Polish circle. during membersyearssupport in City great tothe won elections the subsequent Council and by constituted merchants. house and owners members was of largestcategory The numerous. second not was class this in general ones. Polish over landowners Russian favored considerably which Zemstvo, a Western of Duma, widely in active presented boosted group inintroducingState projectthe 1909 and of be They underestimated. KKRNnot landowners an should of activity were on impact of the landed nobility. numberof the exceeds considerably merchants house and owners Still, the activity of KKRN the urban aspect Anatoliy Savenko, “Zametki,” See the campaign program in program campaign the See ofurban topic the related did neither attentions, scholarly no received group this enough, Interestingly See Faith C. Hillis Robert Edelman. Robert (Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Yale University, 2009) A of bourgeoisie,considerable club support the byRussian was provided although Gentry Politics on the Eve of Russian Revolution. ( Between Empire and Nation: Urban Politics, Community, andViolence in Kiev, 1863- 41 Similarly, the Russian nationalist circle in City Council claimed that claimed Council City in circle nationalist Russian the Similarly, Sbornik kluba russkih natsionalistov Kievlianin, 37 Edelman’s position was criticized for ignoring the strong the ignoring for criticized was position Edelman’s 38 . Indeed, as can be seen from the table, the number of number the table, the from seen be can as Indeed, . June 7, 1908. Demchenko, also involved into railway into involved also Demchenko, 1908. 7, June 24 39 In 1910 preciselyKKRN category of this 40 Theirleader Demchenko,Vsevolod (Kiev:Tipografiya Kushnerova, 1910),p. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers CEU eTD Collection natsionalnogo soiuza 45 they claimed. they which made the ruling elite anti-national and gavecapitals in hands the of foreign investors, to see worstvicethe of old regime inits bureaucratism. Itwas old Russian officialdom occupation. fallsinThis aline with general the position of Russian nationalists who tended profession of seniorwork, or rank. This be interpreted asa can decline inprestige of this they theirwas bigger,insteadstated “bureaucrats,” place often ofindicating themselves but ( “bureaucrats” middle class. We have more than enough of ‘third element’, 44 etc). agents insurance social ( we combat Jews in we combat situation?” this 43 59-60 professors. and houseowners attended by high-rank officials from provincial and municipal organizations, as well as the society of Jewish, thus they claimed that Jews stole municipal money and did nothing forthe sanitary city. conditions The meetings in some were houses. The problem forKKRN was that the water-supplying companyquestion.” In thesummers of 1908 was and 1909 many buildings were cut offsupply, water whichcaused anti- 42 as sewage supply. system and water occupied the bourgeois niche and formed a middle class. “Weformedniche occupied bourgeoisclass. amiddle the and [ they had tobecome always wanted bureaucratsandliberal professionals Jews while claimed to be lacking in Russian society. In a series of articles he criticized Russians for raznocjintsy) Daniil Kotsiubinsky, Anatoliy Savenko, “Zametki,” ‘Third element’ – was a typical expression in 19 In 1909KKRN held a number of public meetings trying to resolve asituationwith the “water-supply Interestingly, a relatively small number of members identified themselves as themselves identified members of number small relatively a Interestingly, It is thisbourgeois exactly KKRN group, the that spokesman Anatoliy Savenko employed in zemstvo organizations (agronomists, technicians, doctors, veterinaries, teachers, veterinaries, doctors, technicians, (agronomists, organizations zemstvo in employed 45 chinovniki (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2001). p. 133 Russkiy natsionalizm v nachale stoletiya: rorzdenie I gibel’ ideologii Vserossiyskogo Sbornik kluba russkihnatsionalistov ) –5%in in 1910, 4% 1911, and3%in 1913. In fact, their number Kievlianin, 44 42 Oct 18, 1908 th cent. Russian Empire, signifying lowerclass intellectuals 25 (Kiev: Tipografiya Kushnerova,1910), p. 43 but no middle class. How can Russians . -OM ] have no have ] -OM . CEU eTD Collection language of language of Little Russiaand and themselves local considered spokesmen patriots Littleof Pikhno, themselves as radical Ukrainophiles (like A.A. Reva). A.A. (like Ukrainophiles radical as themselves operas. and Mykola youngthe admiration of Lysenko, composer whocreated firstthe Ukrainian (Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Yale University, 2009) Little language andculture. Forexample, Russian the the of praising with combined was however, This, movement. Ukrainian the of opponent 49 Question in Russia, 1904-1912 hate-filled propaganda. hate-filled the called Dragomanov beginning of 1870sanewspaperthe published byanotorious Ukrainophile Mykhaylo 48 by KKRN in 47 (Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Yale University, 2009) the Shul’gin) Vasiliy KKRN of periodical.its foundationFrom very in 1864by Vitaliy leader (fatherShul’gin of future the newspaper 46 treachery with consonant its “This motto isregion Russian, Russian, Russian Faith C. Hillis He was a member of Old Hromada - Olga Andriewsky, Ibid. Lysenko later on became the Head of the “Ukrainian Club”, which was closed down after campaign led Faith C. Hillis 47 2.4. ‘Kievlianin’ and the Think Tank of Russian Nationalists Tankof Russian the Think and 2.4. ‘Kievlianin’ 48 Apart from anti-Jewish and anti-Polish attacks, the attacks, anti-Polish and anti-Jewish from Apart The Kiev Club of Russian Nationalists conducted their policy through the through policy their conducted Nationalists Russian of Club Kiev The In fact, a lot of were sympathetic to Ukrainophile ideas, and some of them even regarded even them of some and ideas, Ukrainophile to sympathetic were Kievlianin Kievlianin Between Empire and Nation: Urban Politics, Community, and Violence in Kiev, 1863-1907 Between Empire and Nation: Urban Politics, Community, and Violence in Kiev, 1863-1907 in 1912. (“Kiever”). It was a well-established and widely recognized daily recognized and widely was awell-established It (“Kiever”). Kievskiy TelegrafKievskiy (Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1991). p. 250 Kievlianin Kievlianin journalists, as well as its second chief editor Dmitriy editor chief second its as well as journalists, condemned the claims made by the by made claims the condemned published frequent exposés of frequentexposés of published Jewish and Polish 26 The Politics of National Identity: The Ukrainian 49 Kievlianin They promoted culturethe the and They promoted Kievlianin expressed warm approval warm expressed also was a sharp ɸ Kievlianin ” 46 Sincethe as CEU eTD Collection Shul’gin died, he was succeeded by Dmitriy he Dmitriy Shul’ginPikhno, wassucceededby died, transmigration, buttheintensification landof useandfarm Onlyproduction. a classof or plots land of extension the is not land-hunger, e.g., question, land the to solution the that by He thought fully Club Nationalists. Kiev on the later adopted Russian of since they were in only ignorance was the and escapepoverty Southwest. to way believedisit that responsibility state the developof to industry and which agro-business, the common men. However, Pikhno had never challenged the existing regime and state. He Sergei Witte. The State’s economicminister finance policy of railroad and the industrialists to granted concessions state policy, of critic claimed Pikhno, ignored the economic asharp hebecame contemporaries University St. Vladimir. other of with 1880together In plight of 52 his ownstep-daughter). Ibid. he adopted Shul’gin’s young son, Vitalii (1878-1976) and elopedShul’gin’s with underage daughter (who was 51 50 popularity as “a weapon of the weak.” After 1879, when the first editor of the imperial state (for failing to protect Little Russians from the Polish and Jewish threat.” economic andpolitical purported backersof or Poles) the Jews (the Little Russian people), political exigencies, it couldPoles bedeployed against historicalthe (as of “oppressors” the that Russianness basison victimization inthe of the hands andof Poles Jews. Faith writes Hillis Russians. In1880s newspaper the Ibid Pikhno onlynot inherited Shul’gin’s post,but also married his widow and after deathher afew years later, Ibid Kievlianin’s “ Pikhno’s land agrarian attention special viewsthe and question deserve towards The Kievlianin populism in wastremendously southwest versatile: depending on has alsodeveloped acritique andgained in capitalism of Southwest Zaria criticized the criticized 27 Kievlianin 51 a professor of economy in the 52 because it promoted Little it because promoted Kievlianin Vitaliy 50 CEU eTD Collection disasterforRussia since former Bolsheviks turned into patriots of Russia. In1965 Shulgin was the main hero Soviet activity."He was released in 1956and in his later books argued thatcommunism was no more a army entered Yugoslavia Shulgin was arrested and sentenced to 25 years for his "hostile to communism memoirs anti-and polemic articles (including those of criticizing ideas of anumber Ukrainian nation). In published 1944, he whenwhere the Soviet Yugoslavia, to emigrated he 1917 After of abdication. ceremony the held and Progressive National Group. Togetherwith Alexander Guchkov persuaded he Nicolas II to abdicatethe throne togetherwith members of the Octobrists and army the and Kadet joined he out broke WWI After spokesmen. passionate most ofthe ofone fame a earned and imperial politics. imperial step-father, became politicalfigures and inlate one eventually mostof the notorious his of views economic and political the followed Vasiliy Shul’gin Shul’gin). – Vitaliy editor (Vasiliy Shulgin. elections. previous the on success a large had which nobility, Polish the over won landowners, peasants and Russian clericals Thus, 90%. than bemore to appeared turnout voting the Eventually, voting. the to ofall the parochial priests in which as a representative of to monarchist party letters askedsent tobring Orthodox had day he peasantry election the before weeks Two manner. a curious in Duma IIState to elections before 55 rorzdenie Igibel’ ideologii Vserossiyskogo natsionalnogo soiuza Kotsiubinsky, Daniil labour. free of category a large constituted peasantry. Thus, the upperclass was formed by towards directed were restrictions the all and Jews, and Poles favored privileges new and old Southwest 54 the KKRN and the diedAll-Russian National innew of Union. Pikhno 1912and the chiefeditor Kievlianin the Although Nationalists. Russian of Club Kiev the of co-founders the of one was 1907 Pikhnobecame Council amember State the of ( ananti-revolutionary. ananti-Semitic with socialist agenda combined thus forces and In 53 self-government. and effective establish eventually home comforts, gaintherefore a bigger and surplus it spend wider on consumption, provide amenities and well-off peasantry Shul’gin started his career In 1907, when he managed to consolidate Russian voters of Volyn’ Gubernia in that He explained question. to national connected closely were question land on views Pikhno’s In early Soviet time regarded as regarded time Soviet early In Kievlianin After the revolution of 1905 the never beenin official alliance any with it force,political supported widely became his adopted son – hisadopted became Vasiliy chief Shul’gin first son (biological of the Dni, gody 55 53 Although he wasfamous foranti-Semitic his in position, an 1913he took can increase farm produce, deploy better technological equipment, and canincrease deploy technological equipment, farm better produce, . 1920 (Moscow, 1990).P. 23-45). He was adeputy of II, IIIand IV State Dumas kulaks inorodcy s andother right-wing orcentrist politicians established the Kievlianin 28 , while the lowerclass was Russian and at that time Russkiy natsionalizm v nachale stoletiya: (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2001) p.. 351 Gosudarstvennyi Soviet) antagonized with both liberal and liberal both with antagonized 54 andin 1908 CEU eTD Collection During 1908-1912he successfully led several glorifyingcampaigns local Little Russian movement.” cowardly and treacherous a Ukrainophilism, mysoul of depth the from language and history,traditions, asmuch Iloveas blooded Little Russian, and Iwarmlylove my country,its wonderful nature, customs, and cultural problems of Kiev and Little Russia. social everyday with ending and interests, state Russian over contemplating and situation ofinternational from observations politics – starting issue incurrent nearly every upon day,State Duma hewaselected evenafter to in andmoved Petersburg. He 1912 to touched Kievlianin as ajournalist. acareer inentered subsequently hebecameacolumnistAfterthe 1906 Before 1905 he published several brochures about local Before 1905he history about brochures published several and culture, official. a petty of family inthe town provincial a in born was He organization. this of leader,head wasofficially andafterat the informal 1912 its an existence early of at the stage and in 1913 acouple of dozens ofmembers left club.the advocate. A KKRNmembersnumber expressed of dissatisfaction with Shul’gin’s position 57 56 the age of 98. documentaryin a whichfilm, in sharedhe his memories about thelate Romanov Empire.He died in 1976at – newspaper anti-Semitic most the that Beilis denied and the possibility murder of of out religious motives. This in resulted fact the independent in position theBeilisaffair (afamous blood-libel Mendel case) –hevindicated Anatoliy Savenko, “Zametki,” Savenko followedSavenko a sharp line on question. Ukrainian “Ithe myself a pure- – am However, the most notorious figure in the KKRN was Anatoliy Savenko, who was who Savenko, was Anatoliy KKRN in the figure notorious most the However, and soon and gained popularity.soon wide in articles appearedthe newspaperevery His Kievlianin, May 15, 1908 Kievlianin – Kievlianin 29 khokhly suddenly took a position of aposition Jewish suddenlytook of , lazy and open-hearted. But Ihate 56 and 57 CEU eTD Collection towards Littletowards Russianquestion. In 1915 heinitiated National-Progressivethe Group. views nationalists’ Russian defending spokesmen main the he was in Duma, a debate of subject a became and crux its reached nationalists Ukrainian and Russian between tension the when 1914, In faction. nationalist the of wing left the led time that since and province during hisLittleto visit Russia.In he 1912 waselected to theState Duma Kiev from In 1909 and1911were erected. he the head meeting of delegation was the Tsar II Nicolas monuments of number a initiative his after nationalists; Ukrainian condemning and history 30 CEU eTD Collection holidays”. Yevhen Chykalenko in Yevhen Chykalenko, 59 58 emergenceKKRN. after the months of couple of was established a its most well-off members. well-off most its regularly heldillegal meetings, often general bigreligious holidaysduring in estates the of little in Duma. were State the expressed interests cultural activity in toforge order a uniform inpolitical strategy the situation when Ukrainian setting, the TUP consolidateattempted miscellaneousto under Ukrainian guisegroups the of monarchy and iscapable of cherishing its Malorussian culture within the existing political tothe devoted wasoverwhelmingly region Duma this in that prove State the to Malorussia in community Russian consolidate to tried KKRN while level: deeper much a on politics Ukrainian periodicals, and clubs organizations. However, bothgroups were involved in publicizing limited theirUkrainian of all existing the official cause, support agenda to bewhich an to declared itself organization, apolitical theSociety Ukrainian of Progressives See notes in Chykalenko’s diary starting with a typical phrase “A lot of guest comers gathered during the Tovarystvo Ukrayinskyh Postupovtsiv The Society of Ukrainian Progressives ( 1908 of Circumstances ofTUP Political and Foundation 3.1. The andIntellectualBackground Composition, Framework, Social Political Progressives: Ukrainian of Society 3: Chapter In 1908Ukrainian nationalists to thesemi-legal resorted activity political – TUP 59 wasThis causedturn by numbera of circumstances which (TUP) 31 Shchodennyk Tovarystvo ukrayinskyh postupovtsiv (Kyiv:Tempora, 2004) 58 Similarly to KKRN, , TUP) CEU eTD Collection 61 (Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1991).p. 273 Russophiles, Panslavists, andRussian liberalsnationalist inthis project causeda genuine Galician party, Dmowsky’s Roman of involvement The federation. Slavic any of condition Slavic which movement, recognized thatRusso-Polishwas rapprochementan essential autonomous values” of expression authentic an than rather repression a government of symptom a merely as epiphenomenon, of kind a as ‘Ukrainophilism’ regard to continued whole, a as intelligentsia by him national as a question. Struve nationalistliberalsand Russian “like Russian the regarded not was question Ukrainian The Polish. and Jewish particularly Southwest, the in problem nationalities shouldimpliedregion. the thatRussia This resolve “homeward” shift attention strengtheningin more of culturally hospitableon the Russian culture Black Sea Russian invested State many too efforts into the Far Eastaffairs, itfocus while should its 60 nationalist. movement wasThis activists. Ukrainian the liberal to implications troubling bring to seemed nationalism, liberal in its commitment to legality and constitutional inthis. enthusiasm little showed order, and atKievanIvan Kadet Luchytskyy, wasexpected to voiceonce Ukrainian buteven heconcerns, constitutional Ukrainian indemocrats, allies. DumaThus, thirdthe State only one deputy, 1907 patronized right-wing which limited andOctobrist parties, the representation of of Law TheJune “reactionary”1907-1908. of years Election became the palpable during Ibid, 360 Olga Andriewsky, In the early part of 1908 Petr Struve together with Karel Karel with Kramá Struve together 1908 Petr early In the of part More importantly,More within newcurrent Russian publicthe of 1907-1908, opinion 60 The leader of Russian nationalist liberals, Petr Struve believed, that the that believed, Struve Petr liberals, nationalist Russian of leader The The Politics of National Identity: The Ukrainian Question in Russia,1904-1912 61 , writes, Olga Andriewsky. 32 Ĝ initiated the Neo- the initiated CEU eTD Collection 65 (Kyiv:Lybid’,1993).p. 59 64 Ukrainian Question in Russia, 1904-1912 63 more elaborate technique of was developmentof grass-roots’ winning sympathies. TUP the of concerns important most the of one Thus, people. common among success more frustrated hopesthe of Ukrainian leaders whohadexpected revolution after the 1905 of negotiated. See negotiated. of Russo-Polish rapprochement. KKRN claimed that Polish questionshould be combated rather than 62 only supporting3 periodicals, considerable them subsidies.with financial difficulties for its editors. So, after 1907 the Ukrainian movement could maintain thenextyear downwithin closed because oflittleamong interest readers,which the caused aspirations. Ukrainian to hostile clearly were forces these of all since nationalists, Ukrainian to threat activistsfounded 35periodicals of in the course 1906 particularly regardingthose language the useof Ukrainian in media,Ukrainianprinted challenges in 1907. Taking of advantageout alleviationthe legalof in restrictions 1905 and progressivism and constitutionalism,in the name of the highest principles.” every betray they opportunity are readytobehindus… and do this byhiding will much in Russian liberals.”trust concludednewspaper Ukrainian the put cannot movement Ukrainian “The nationalists. Ukrainian to benevolent uniformly not possibility that nationalistliberals would take the lead in the Kadet party, which anyway was years,much nationalists weresubsequent since 1908Ukrainian concerned aboutthe Ibid, 60 Kasianov, Heorhiy “Ideyna borot’ba,” “Ideyna The Kiev Club of RussianNationalists distanced itself from Neo-Slav movement condemning a possibility Last, but not least, the emergence of KKRN and the following attacks in Except for external threats, Ukrainian nationalists faced a number of internal faced anumber of nationalists Ukrainian for external threats, Except 62 Although Neo-Slavic movement did not gain any political success in the in success political any gain not did movement Neo-Slavic Although Sbornik kluba russkihnatsionalistov Rada Ukrayins’ka intelihentsiya naruberzi XIX-XX stolit’.Sotsial’no-politychnyi portret , 30July 1908. Quote Olga Andriewsky, (Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1991). p. 324 (Kiev: Tipografiya Kushnerova, 1909), V. 1. V. 1909), Kushnerova, Tipografiya (Kiev: 33 64 . However, almost all of . However, were all them almostof The Politics of National Identity: The 65 Rada This lack of interest of lack This inJuly 1908, “At 63 Kievlianin CEU eTD Collection and periodical. liberal, a numberAlso, and progressive asademocratic,presented times of TUP 67 claimed it to be a democratic and liberal be it a claimed andto movement. liberal democratic currents. party’sthe main organ newspaper– the daily social-democrats on the left to ultra-nationalists on the right. Similarly, an editorial staff of Empire, among and its members werepeoplevarious of political views –ranging from nationalists. media ofRussian the force through treacherous and adangerous of publicity a wide received they but media, own their with recipients their innationalists break werecaught a situation couldnot when they to of through hearts the andmultidivisional awell-devisedstructure, strategy. propaganda Ukrainian Therefore, strength of movement, claimingUkrainian possess it financial astrongto support, enormous 66 The it. to alternative an forge potentially could became a public organization expressedUkrainianwhich deephostility movementandto The groups. KKRN by target their weakreception administrative and restrictions limited to meant for Ukrainian activists that the potential obstacles for their movement were not See short biographies of editorial stuff in Yevhen Chykalenko, Yevhen in stuff of editorial biographies short See Ukrainskiy vopros Rada The Society of The Society Ukrainian of Progressives united differentUkrainian across the groups Liberals Constitutional Russian and of“Autonomy” TheQuestion Framework: 3.1. Political 66 distanced themselves from distanced from representatives themselves radical movement, tryingUkrainian of But at the same time, TUP, same Butatthe time, in movement general, the Ukrainian representing (Saint-Petersburg, 1914). P. 63 34 Rada Kievlianin – presented a full spectrum –presented afull spectrum of political 67 Shchodennyk Similarly, newspaper the constantly overestimated the overestimated constantly (Kyiv: Tempora, 2004), p. 6-9 Rada was CEU eTD Collection Petersburg: Obshchestvennaya pol’za, 1907) trebovaniya” in Hrushevskyi, “O zrelosti I nezrelosti,” in Inezrelosti,” zrelosti “O Hrushevskyi, 71 ekonomike Rossii,” in Petro Stebnytskyi, widely deployed.See were exploitation” “economic and “colonialism” terms where of texts a number published have they 1914 Although in a daily press Ukrainian economy. nationalists of Southwest used softcharacter termsagrarian fordescribing exacerbated and this growth situation,economic startingon hampered further fromwhich Ukrainian nationalists by indicated, gathered that statistics the The rate of literacyinfrastructure. social in Southwest and schooling as was such much lower goods, public thanas in Central Southwest to Russia,directed were not and provinces central inthe accumulated were profits from These treasury. withdrawn State was Central to Ukraine production agrarian from surplus the Empire, of Russian centralism the of Because 70 liberalov Iukrainskikh natsionalistov po ‘ukrainskomu voprosu’, “ Khripachenko, policy. Tatiana economic and of financial development importance.Ukraine was supposed to ofnational be governed treaties trade by local relations, parliament withinternational wide purposes, responsibilitiesgeneral the for budget the including peace, and war of questions the were: concerns Parliament’s State The state. ofthe parts autonomous the from representation equal with principle federal on the based been have should chambers of the One parliament. bicameral of them, presented by the Ukrainian Democratic Party, suggested that the state should be governed by 69 the in on the question of political autonomy in a series of writings. instruction in educational and administrative institutions. inevitablyprojects implied that Ukrainian the language become would amediumof groups withingroups milieu offered Ukrainian differentissue.readings of this different and reforms, political pertinent of program devised well a have didn’t nationalists reorganization of the Russian Empire into afederation of territorial units. Ukrainian TUP autonomy pursued was which Ukraine, entailedof establishing a territorial independence latter neverovertly tothe Ukraine.the of Thepolitical which goal aspired 68 forces. itframeworkto keep oflegaland balance within the establishedthe activity political of See Mykhaylo Hrushevskyi, Mykhaylo See Vindicating the need for autonomy Ukrainian nationalists combined national and economic argumentation. radical most The groups. by different offered Ukraine of autonomy the of projects three were there 1905 In See for example Seefor Rada. 68 The intellectual leader of leaderThe intellectual nationalists, of MykhayloUkrainian elaborated Hrushevskyi, Although KKRN marked TUP and the Ukrainian national movementas separatist, Serhiy Yefremov, “Z nashoho rzyttia” in Ukrainskiy vestnik Serhiy Yefremov’s Ukrainskiy vopros Natsionalnyi vopros I avtonomiya , V. 5, 1906; Mykhaylo Hrushevskyi, critique of Dmytro Dontsov and hisbook Modern “The Moscowphilism” (Saint-Petersburg, 1914). P. 72-140, Petro Stebnytskyi,“Ukraina v Vybrani tvory Ukrainskiy vestnik Ukrainskiy Rada 35 , 29 June, 1913. (Kyiv,Tempora:2009). P. 259-287 , V. 4, 1906; Mykhaylo Hrushevskyi,”Nashi ” Manuscript. P. 14 (St. Petersburg, 1907); Mykhaylo 70 ‘Avtonomiya’ i ‘feredatsiya’ v debatakh Edinstvo iliraspadenie Rossii? 71 He considered that the that Heconsidered 69 However, these (St. CEU eTD Collection territorial autonomy would anyway dominantfavor nations. mixed. Thus wereethnically most areas impossible since such demarcation was that thought nations. They inhabitancecertain of of areas the with coincide must territorial units the traditionof governing and the autonomy would notbe national by essence.As an alternative Kadet 75 74 73 ‘ukrainskomu voprosu’ democratic transformation. democratic including autonomy, should besatisfied, and these nations then would their direct efforts to demands, national the first that claimed contrary, the on Hrushevs’kyi, established. were beunits; however institutions placed this could ontheagendaonly democratic basic after of a federation beterritorial into reorganized should Empire ultimately Russian that object not did latter The democrats. constitutional Russian and Hrushevskyi between contention Ukrainian autonomy in Russian society. of active most advocate nationalists’ hebecame 1914 of the ideas,Ukrainian reflection after all national minorities of Russian Empire should achieve cultural and national self-determination. Practically 72 been nointerethnicmixing. have would there that way in a function should latter army. The an and system financial administration and promotion of Ukrainian Itwasimportantculture. tohave aseparate question islimitedof autonomy not use of to Ukrainianthe language in public units. independent relatively of a conglomerate into reform therefore and possible, as freedom Empire’s political setting,Hrushevs’kyi argued eachnation that should gainasmuch In regions such as Kingdom of Poland the autonomy was, however, possible because area this had distinct Ibid, 19 Ibid, 22 Tatiana Khripachenko, “ 73 Although it was apersonal account onthisquestion of the Hrushevs’kyi than rather The question of was The andafederalsystem of Russian state question of a bone autonomy , ” Manuscript. P. 21 ‘ Avtonomiya’ i ‘feredatsiya’ v debatakh liberalov I ukrainskikh natsionalistov po natsionalistov ukrainskikh I liberalov v debatakh i ‘feredatsiya’ Avtonomiya’ 74 Moreover, the Kadet Moreover, the 72 Using the metaphor “the prison of the nations” for the for nations” the of prison “the metaphor the Using 36 s did not accept Hrushevs’kyi’s idea that idea Hrushevs’kyi’s accept not did 75 s suggested CEU eTD Collection YevhenChykalenko, 77 partii nakanune pervoy mirovoi voiny,” in voiny,” mirovoi pervoy nakanune partii mass-media, civil equality of proceedings, all ethnic legal groups.schooling, in Irina Mikhutina, ofinstruction “Ukrainskiyof language choice free vopros conscience, of i russkie freedom the politicheskie implied this heart. his in centralism cherishes liberal Russian dangerous.” of harmful thisI regard “implementation program forfederation, autonomy and and striving Ukrainians’ with disagreement deep expressed Miliukov time, same the At Empire. werefarfrom nationalists unity Ukrainian andacting againstthe Russianseparatism the of Savenkofor hismisconception innatethe of nature of Ukrainian movement, he argued that Anatoliy Attacking movement. Ukrainian the of in radicalizating result eventually would and situation, political initiated byKKRNexacerbated culture Ukrainian proliferation of formal Ukrainianthe agenda.Miliukovclaimedthat informal obstructionsand tothe meeting with Ukrainian nationalistsin Kiev, where 10spokesmen presented key issues of Hisaddressed toRussian nationalists. argumentation was largely based onthepreceding defending Ukrainian nationalcultural and aspirations, aspeech which firstandwas foremost 76 http://litopys.org.ua/vzaimo/vz16.htm (accessed May 28, 2010) Reprintsev V.F., Floria B.N (Moscow: “Yazyki Shkola russkoy 1997),kultury”, They thought bepolitics. incontemporary amatter importance of a prime schools appearedto in primary that instruction of medium the a as language Ukrainian the of implementation the prospect, biggest distant problem of the question begins.”Southwest wasUkrainian “Russian social environment: liberalism pointendswhere atthe the Ukrainian the low rate of literacy, “Whatever the appearances are, but every but are, appearances the “Whatever Miliukov’s speech reprinted in Yevhen Chykalenko, In 1914 theKadet leader Milukov of Party Petr delivered aspeechin Duma the State While the demand for autonomy remained for most of Ukrainian nationalists a 76 Ukrainian nationalists commented on this remark that even the outmost the even that remark this on commented nationalists Ukrainian Shchodennyk (Kyiv: Tempora, 2004), p. 320 Rossiya-Ukraina: istoriya vzaimootnosheni, Katsap , even the most progressive, is centralist deep inside” - inside” deep centralist is progressive, most the even , 37 Shchodennyk 77 In fact,it was a bandied phrase within the (Kyiv: Tempora, 2004), p.313-319 ed. Miller A.I., CEU eTD Collection 2005. S Petro Stebnytskyi, literacy in Southwest wasof low often fact debatedthe however in theexplained, press. was not - Russians Petro from Stebnytskyi, by Stebnytsky “substracted” were “Ukraina v Ukrainians ekonomike Rossii,” in and 9.3 – Russians (including Belorussians and Ukrainians); 23.3 and 3.9 – Ukrainians.the 52.5 The– Lithuanians way in which and Latvians; 48.9 and 28.2 – Jews; 35.2 and 26.9 – Finns;conducted in34.8 1987.According andto this table,29.4 59.9 men – Poles; and58.6 womenwere literate 29.6 among Germans; 52.0 and data about literacy rate among men and womenof different nationalities in Russian Empire based oncensus 78 turn of century the Ukrainian circles emerged in institutions educational other of Southwest, of St. Vladimirmovement,Ukrainian national domainwas traditionally and of the bythe War. University The Great the of beginning the until activists national Ukrainian of majority a formed general in which intelligentsia, of overwhelmingly consisted it that doubt little is there However, is absent. members its about documentation official any status semi-legal its aspirations. in it against signedSouthwest, a itKiev Clubcampaignup butThe ofRussian Nationalists started in in school Duma.education State including 37deputies, conservatives from some peasant educational In1908 process. TUP initiated ofintroducing the project Malorussian the dialect instruction inof areas the Malorussian majority the where hadhamperedthe spoke dialect Russia. of provinces Central the to especially compared 79 A member of TUP, Petro Stebnytskyy in his work “Ukraine in Russian economics” presented an interesting an presented economics” Russian in “Ukraine work his in Stebnytskyy Petro of TUP, Amember See Vulpius, Ricarda. “Ukrainskiy yazyk Ishkolnoe obuchenie v pozdneimperskiy period” bornik kluba russkih natsionalistov. Conducting an accurate account of Conducting account of an social accurate composition of TUP is impossible; due to Peasantry and Intelligentsia Between Prospects: Social and Composition 3.3. Social 79 Kievlianin Vybrani tvory and among the Duma deputies, which eventually buried down buried eventually down TUP’s which Dumadeputies, the and among (Kyiv,Tempora:2009). P. 280 (Kiev: TipografiyaKushnerova i K°, 1909). P.&& 38 78 Moreover,language Russian the . Ab Imperio, #2, Imperio, Ab CEU eTD Collection 82 (Kyiv:Lybid’,1993).p. 49. 81 (Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1991). p. 2 80 in administrative order. By 1910 the central “Prosvitas” in Odessa, Chernihiv, andKiev ideaspropaganda and offaulty amongcontamination peasantry,be must prohibited and thus Volyn’, Rzytomyr, Odessa, Kherson, Donetsk displayed very little activity in this sense. Chernihiv, andPoltava hadvast, multiunit networks of “Prosvitas”, while otherregions,like Kiev, Katerynoslav, Kamianets-Podillya, like regions, Some Southwest. in the low very literacy successamong which,their depended again, remained ultimate on peasants, directly andlibraries.reading gain rooms “Prosvitas” seemedto Although a large publicinterest, etc., villagesin celebrations, these were predominantly hobby the public lectures, groups as smaller well cities, as inmanyvillages. Whilein cities “Prosvitas” the usually organized which(‘Enlightenment’), in urbanwere established major itscenters and had inunits “Prosvita” of on organizations the wereplaced peasantry.expectations Great zemstvos its membersfor in inemployment of assistance one was concerns that their evidence preserve nor merchants andgroups, Throughout entrepreneurs. their history groups, traditionally called eclectic in ideologically together got schools higher and institutes, technical seminaries, as well in as PetersburgSt. and Moscow. Students and of graduates universities,the Ibidem Kasianov, Heorhiy Olga Andriewsky, Nevertheless, KKRN trumpeted in the press that “Prosvitas” are centers of of separatist arecenters “Prosvitas” in that press the KKRN trumpeted Nevertheless, The revolution of 1905 provided anopportunity for intelligentsiapave away to to . 81 of educated professionals (regarded at that time as “third element”); there is time atthat “thirdthere as professionals element”); (regarded educated of The Politics of National Identity: The Ukrainian Question in Russia,1904-1912 Ukrayins’ka intelihentsiya naruberzi XIX-XX stolit’.Sotsial’no-politychnyi portret hromada. 80 There were neither peasants and workers in these workers and peasants neither were There 39 hromadas remained a remained 82 CEU eTD Collection exactly the sort of exactly of itjournal between intellectuals. polemics sort shewanted the was, she However,morefamily that wanted responded readers. win thus organ, Pchilka and 83 Vynnychenko him therefore turn a profit,was much which desirable for himatthat time. But did not wantinstead novels, of philosophical claiming thatplays would success in have public and to accept thepersuade Volodymyrwriter triedChykalenko to Vynnychenkocompose plays stage to taste of a majority, he wanted to Pchilka’scombat journal.Chykalenko recommended herrearrange to old Rada kray pages ofherperiodical onthefront dispute aheated initiated 1908 Olena Pchilka in example, For colleagues. his of efforts limited about complained often masses the among Yevhen Chykalenkowhodisplayed alarge with concern spreading Ukrainiannationalism elitist coterie of upper classbourgeoisie no with in intention of directactivity village. the luteand players, in suits they Ukrainian folk posed on butstill photographs, an remained gatherings folk with Ukrainian singings anddances, which often visitedwere byfolk choirs enjoyed centers urban large other and Kiev in nationalists Ukrainian plan. thought-out well disguisingSouthwest, at the same time their internal failures in massgaining support. exactly legal restrictions whichhampered the proliferation of Ukrainian in consciousness pre-1905 political Ukrainian nationalistsregime, evokedan itargumentation was that these events, andalso constantfines the levied Ukrainianagainst periodicals, asareturn to were closed shock for Ukrainiandown, which came asagreat nationalists. Interpreting Yevhen Chykalenko, targeting Jews and particularly a Ukrainian intellectual of Jewish origin, prof. Perets. prof. origin, Jewish of intellectual Ukrainian a particularly and Jews targeting criticized her anti-Semitic stance, and soon after discontinued soon subscribers anumberof and stance, heranti-Semitic criticized In fact, gaining the peasants’ gaining peasants’ In fact, the rather than ideala was of hearts activists an Ukrainian Shchodennyk, V.1 (Kyiv: Tempora, 2004). p. 30 40 Ridnyi kray into a peasant a or 83 Similarly, Ridnyi CEU eTD Collection 85 84 movement: cooperative and intelligentsia the about wrote authors the of one 1910 gain Ukrainianthus nationalists hoped to among adherents the most progressivepeasants.In education. newspaper Cooperatives subscriptioncould afford for all members,its a and of self- and self-government for a potential exemplified movement this commodities, ownership of common means of assistantship and/or production, in purchasing mutual peasantry,assurance, Based on in had big success Galicia. already a which village.the encourage politically active Ukrainians conscious without intelligentsia engagement of in cities the mob,led by Black Hundreds, would smash the Jews and the intelligentsia.” in the And them. protect to one no be would there for estates, landlords’ plunder and down have internal an war,much worse the than one of 1905. Probably, would burn peasants between Russiaononeside and Austria with other,the Germany on wewould probably think about peasantperil. the In 1913 Yevhen inwrote Chykalenko his diary:“In case of war superstitions, build new morality and eventually set anew in stage Ukrainian literature. Yevhen Chykalenko, Yevhen Chykalenko, out resources and powers from among the very people [folk] upon whose upon [folk] people very among from the and powers resources out ferret must intelligentsia the circumstances, these In undone. completely lies even or hampered, is work the short, fall these since Ukraine. And the pitiful lack of enlightened people and capital resources in a successfully,greatenoughfinances work placenot and are to like especially due to and lead the people on the path toward a better life. But as usual its powers andit spreadenlightenment amongmust theown people, financespowers its country. With the of intelligentsia) (the citizenry conscious politically lot of the falls tothe so, the struggledo not ignorance do with popular So long asthose inwho the firstinstance ought tobe taking up the struggle to hoped nationalists Ukrainian which with endeavor one was there However, Moreover, theplunder place which 1905revolution duringtook the gave reasonsto Rada Shchodennyk, Shchodennyk, actively promoted withinmovement theUkrainian actively cooperative the promoted V. 1. (Kyiv: Tempora, 2004). p.266 V. 1. (Kyiv: Tempora, 2004). p. 83-84, 90 41 85 84 CEU eTD Collection Shchodennyk, Chykalenko, Yevhen Association. Loan Mutual The as business think, would one a petty, such for resources have neither capital, nor people who could run such a serious business as a bank,Jewish hands, just asit happened withas the weKiev Commercialfell Mutual Loan short Association,founded of by Ukrainians.these We 88 87 86 sphere. However, problem of the which theyfaced was specialists in shortage the Ukrainian this Ukrainian nationalists contemplated theestablishmentof a Cooperative Bankin 1913. drew thefollowing of in picture cooperation village: the Ukrainian nationalists about. dreamed typeinthevillagethat the of Anotherrelations author with the Ukrainian cause, the bank would notfulfill its mission while seeking profit. In 1914 Yevhen Chykalenko wrote: “I’m afraid, that this bank, if we get a permit for its foundation, will fall into the “Kooperatyvnyirukh naseli,” in M. Mandryk, “Kooperatsiya bez ideyi,” in 88 But the ultimate success of the cooperative movement depended on the loan system.loan on the depended movement cooperative the success of ultimate But the ofyears.already a couple house, builtby agricultural cooperative society, which hereexists for tothem.which This hugeexpectations gives is edifice people’sthe [folk] all Koshmanivka inhabitantsin proud eyesthe neighboringof villages, and makes of 1909, which summer the erectedduring was ahugeedifice there see you the buildingsalso of intelligentsia, local lives there goods, selling merchants farmers, houses of well-off bunch youof seea there over colors: more cheerful has picture the church, the with square the around village, the of center working on their this own: is picture a true Koshmanivka.of Only in the instead of estates in richer hoboing to condemned whoare peasants, figuresof crooked farmsteads, acrosstheslopes in scattered cattle sheds as it is villages. often a casewith oflonely other Plethora shabby huts and peasants’ hasno andstandardof craft special wealth culture. It occupation, biggestthe it pride can boast villages, of with Ukrainian neither the village] Koshmanivka [The can’t withboast whichis nature, marvelous the in weredepicted Cooperatives aidintelligentsia. ready to the stands cooperative isit and[enlightenment] working. well-being the It isprimarily here that They were afraid that if hiredthey simply professionalsdidn’t who sympathize V.1. (Kyiv: Tempora, 2004), p. 263 volost Rada 87 , April 29, 1910. administration, school, hospital etc. Moreover, Rada Rada , January 15, 1910. as centers of welfare and culture. It was exactly 42 86 CEU eTD Collection 91 90 89 territory between the rivers San and Don,” ‘Malorussians’,“One day, when our press train conductor. She herselfregarded language “khokhlatska.” “khokhol” andher as as andbecomes advanced,‘khokhols’in Ukrainian,butspoke splendid Ukrainian language with her sonand pureRussian with a when we attain our school, city on Volgawill river, knowtheword“Ukrainian,”not read anybook shedidor article never these ‘rusyns’,becomeof them was a lady,nationally whom Chykalenko of people –urban dwellers whospokeRussian in public Ukrainian and in privatelife. One met in a train car. A landownerconscious sphere. private the from Kamyshyn, a into urban Ukrainianbecome waspushed speakers,sothat overwhelmingly Russian citizens Ukrainians,language Ukrainian after was asecond Yiddish). of did century the afterAnd turn the only on century many Ukrainian cities population (including urban spoke the forwhom of Jews, the inthe19 of decades acouple argued thatfor Jews,Chykalenko and Poles of class consists hopesbourgeoisie for middle and urban class.lamented that middle WhileSavenko all the foreign tobeancitizenship insurmountable turned problem. the but Stebnytskyifrom they that Galicia, involve “mercenaries” Petro should suggested Ibid, 228 Yevhen Chykalenko, Yevhen Chykalenko, and Petro Stebnytskyi, Experiencing difficulties with gaining peasants’ Experiencing difficulties with peasants’ gaining the sympathies, lessTUP had even 90 Shchodennyk, In his diary Chykalenko described his experiences of Chykalenko Inhis meeting hisexperiencesof described diary this kind V. 1. (Kyiv: Tempora, 2004), p.281-282 Lystuvannia 91 wrote Chykalenko. wrote 43 1901-1922. (Kyiv, Tempora: 2008).P. 399 89 th CEU eTD Collection 92 place regularly there. performances took music and readings literary artists; by visited often were meetings Monday Also, Society. Rada gatherings monthly. wereheldalmost However, meetingsstaff Monday atthenewspaper meetingsplace,according but took of diary the to Yevhenin Chykalenko, 1910 these manythese how of is no together.evidence There cities got from different members after 1917, after when Ukrainians gained legal for Ukrainianrights language. point of Chykalenko’s argumentation. The publishing of brochurethis discontinued wasnot agreed with but school,every learning at Ukrainian whodoubted of necessity the peasant, finalized this –“A series Language.” his Hedepicted a dialog with about Conversation which brochure extra an wrote Chykalenko enough, Interestingly copies. million a half by “Livestock” in Herbs”,and “Orchard”,1914 weredistributed over Fallow”, “Cultivated Farming.”in language, about “Conversations “Autumn “Grape”, Published Ukrainian the aboutbrochuresof thewaystoimprove for peasants under generaltitleproduction the farm implementation intensivemethods. farming of At aseries turn the of he century the started Yevhen Hewas alandowner, Chykalenko. large whofrom a gained the profit Yevhen Chykalenko, and Petro Stebnytskyi, were the sites of the political discussions, usually engaging only some members of the The owner and a chief of the newspaper the of chief a and owner The in The hadillegal meetings which of Ukrainian Society Progressives regularly Chykalenko Yevhen of Commitment Personal ‘Rada’ and 3.4. Lystuvannia 44 1901-1922. (Kyiv, Tempora: 2008). Rada , an informal leader of TUP,of was leader informal an , 92 CEU eTD Collection gave an unusual feeling upon the first discovery of such text. Secondly, the content of the of content the Secondly, text. such of discovery first the upon feeling unusual an gave orthographythe from was distinct andRussian languageletters the use ofletters, which readers. the unfamiliardecades of were Also,XIX century. to last numberwords of Thus,a peasant However, sayings. literary this language,was awhich wasformedin in the Galicia use original Ukrainian languagethe of orthography readers complained and aboutthe expressions, Firstly, bymultiple factors. among readers law interest explained relatively the editors and the titlesout-turn, butstill,by 1914 the newspaper hadgained littlemore than 3000 subscribers. The of the articles either by support or by subscribers.engagement of other in This donations resulted a certain often contained peculiar by time deficit the grew unbearably large.that closed beginningthe down at GreatWar,the of of viewed it Chykalenkoas asort forrelief loans.bank to resorted times of a number and burden financial huge a as it saw he though even Chykalenko, by paid was rest The movement. Ukrainian diary. tothe sympathized who Symyrenko, by magnate Partly, the was covered deficit the year. in inChykalenko’slarge mostentries the Thisall of wasatopic caused a deficit which 6 rubles per wasreducedto periodical the the price of etc.), priests (teachers, intelligentsia groupnumber increase.not targetyears Since did waspeasantsand the their rural itin gained 1907 after soon over 2000thousand subscribers; however during subsequent 93 cause. Apparently, Ukrainian serve the would would beleft his to whilechildren, everything he that had acquiredhis throughout life Yevhen Chykalenko, On the eve of 1911 Chykalenko declared all that he property the which from hadinherited his father Shchodennyk, Rada V. 1.(Kyiv: Tempora, 2004) printed a passionate appeal to its readersencouraging appeal to apassionate printed 45 Rada became his largest investment. Started Rada 93 In fact, when fact, In . The journalists tried. Thejournalists to Rada was CEU eTD Collection 95 94 political agenda of the TUP. 3000 thousand nevertheless, subscribers, important rolein played an shaping the social and endeavor. The newspaper win to mass of support peasantry,the by little however 1914 achieved successinthis was not devoid of a number of conceptual misunderstandings. Ukrainian nationalists aspired liberal-democratic force political and alliedwith Russianliberals,however thiscooperation Nationalistsintelligentsia, and the Nationalistwhich in political 1908united consisting miscellaneous groups predominantly of faction aimingof theeditions of “Illustrated History of by Ukraine” Mykhaylo Hrushevskyi. Kadet toparty. combat “Kobzar”100,000 folk of 200,000copies calendars, by Taras and 10,000 Shevchenko, TUP represented thein publicationsSouthwest a bigquantity. weredistributed werepublished By 1914there threat itself as cominga discontinue for thisreason. asked to their subscription from officials. Yevhenin Chykalenko his anumberoflettersin diary published people which the Kievimage of anegative created Club itfrequently was the emphasized, critiqueUkrainian of undertakings in ofthe RussianArticles and on foundpolitical problems social little interest amongThirdly, grass-roots. and interestingUkrainian feuilletons. of and comprehensible producing capable werex writers few that complained interesting. Chykalenko andnot abstruse newspaper wasoften Miliukov’s speech reprinted in Yevhen Chykalenko, Yevhen Chykalenko, To summarize, the Society of Ukrainian Progressives was a semi-legal organization, wasasemi-legal ToProgressives of Society Ukrainian the summarize, Although daily the newspaper didwin not success,expected otherprinted Shchodennyk, Rada Rada , publishedby Yevhenhave failed Chykalenko, more to than V. 1. (Kyiv: Tempora, 2004). P. 262 , which resulted in conflicts between subscribers and local 46 Shchodennyk 94 (Kyiv: Tempora, 2004), p.317 95 Kievlianin CEU eTD Collection considerable practical implications on the regional level. regional the on implications practical considerable since in these a numberof centers crucial could and bemade, this,decisions inturn, had earn to sympathy in of various quarters PetersburgSt. and Moscow, which important was also deployed of critiques each other. The level,thirdimperial, implies that bothgroups tried of Southwest population, and often used for this purpose not only an affirmative agenda,but population of Malorussia/Ukraine. The KKRN andthe TUP attemptedgain massto support the targeted level,reader. for Thesecond acontemporary regional, scholar, andapparently for a acertain riddle often represented it and understand, could coterie limited only a University of Vladimir.St. These debatescontainedmany andinklingsreferences which other very well and were affiliated in the same institutions, in the majority of the cases in the levelandimperial. Theinsider place people took knewthe of between who debate each the can of this within research. thescope befeatures shaped still peculiar certain however long-term and with endeavors short- expectations, since wereday-to-day complex these across the Empire. It touched uponmanyis issues, pursuedmultiplevarious and social tasks, to appealed groups impossible to distinguish newspapers daily a specificaudience,the to wereaddressed and definedtopics had clearly accurately brochuresWhile andbooks. of becamethe subjects separate sensitive editions solid questions policies of these Societygroups of Ukrainian Progressives took place on the pages of theirnewspapers, and the most For the practical reasons I will distinguish three levels of the debate: insider, regional the and nationalists Russian of Club Kiev the between rivalry political quotidian The question Malorussian andthe Strategies 4. Political Chapter 47 CEU eTD Collection movement caused an interesting controversy. On the one hand, one the On controversy. interesting an caused movement and its aspirations. However, the fact that However, the itsand aspirations. movement Ukrainian the of ignorant remained in general latter the that consideration into role of by Moscow localitself andbe Ukrainophiles, supposed apart liberationistto of press. The mysl’ Kievskaya was Kiev in which of important most the – periodicals (osvoborzdencheskie) liberationist Petersburg) andPetersburg) the matters of “non-historical” nations. of“non-historical” matters the mostly focused on affairs international cause, within with Ukrainian concerned the foremost affairs. Empire’s the and state situation political international the unofficial sections, while Kievlianin even in the largest cities of Russian Southwest, thus was often left behind the latest events. institutions. many subscribers, among which individuals, onlywere not private butalsobureaucratic possible due to a wide possible dueto netof correspondents. published The news subscribers. of number small fromrelatively a with intelligentsia allnationalist over the world, and particularly the Russian Empire, which was Kievlianin It was already mentioned that the that was already mentioned It notes 4.1. Preliminary Rada , having a status , having a status of a dominantperiodical inhad RussianSouthwest, official and Rada among the liberationist newspapers was very insignificant, especially taking especially insignificant, very was newspapers liberationist the among . Moskovskie vedomosti , on the contrary, was rather a newspaper for a close coterie of Ukrainian of coterie for aclose contrary,newspaper the , on a wasrather was a conservative newspaper, was a conservative whichallied the with Rada allied with monthlythe journal Rada did not have this division. this have not did (Moscow). It was opposed to the whole set of Kievlianin 48 Rada Rada tailed back alongthe liberationist at of could notaffordits own correspondents was a well-established periodical with periodical wasawell-established Ukrainskaya zhyzn Ukrainskaya Kievlianin Rada paidlargeto attention Rada Novoe vriemia Novoe enjoyed powerful , beingfirst and ’ in published Kievlianin (St. CEU eTD Collection which heaped scorn on to vulnerable wereextremely liberationists, force within weakest the the of asone nationalists hand,Ukrainian other the On readers. among its success catalyze Rada Post factum Polish). (not Russian/Ukrainian was population Kholm the of majority the that argument Kingdom of Poland TUP in general thissupported undertaking, they since agreed with the by TUP. WhenuponKKRN’sfrom the Kholm province wasdetached the initiative resolve the landquestion. turn, its In in Southwest. movement and aseriousallies, which all posed and threat toconservatives together Neither support in saved from ignorance poverty tacit received and in articles numerous Thus, problem. introduction offarm intensivethethat production methods alleviate couldof possibly desirable consideredland as a Moreover, solution. groups of expropriation the agreed both However, landof in none these problem hunger Southwest. acute of of the were aware criticism from the opponent. Such was the question of land. Both the KKRN and the TUP Rada combined its liberal own of with which demands the agenda other groups, promised to Similiarly,endeavorssome important of KKRN 1909 weremore orlessof supported betweencomprehend debate the essence of impossible the to It would be Kievlianin without acknowledging that a number of acknowledgingnever in number of their without agenda thatgained points a Rada and Mykhaylo Hrushevskyi expressed some discontent with the Russian the with discontent some expressed Hrushevskyi Mykhaylo and commented on Rada ’s movement. role in liberation the Rada Rada Rada discussing the ways in which villagethe could be never the criticized by program StoplypinPetr to ’s with cooperative deepconcern popularizing 49 Kievlianin Kievlianin Kievlianin , andviceversa. particularly. Kievlianin ’s attacks, CEU eTD Collection 1913). P. 35 person was Ippolit Kapnist. Yearbookof KKRN it was stated that a person“I K…t” donated 2000 rubles to the Club. It is likely, that this 99 98 97 96 organization. influential member KKRN of Petr Armashevsky,Kapnist and himselfsympathized with this enrollment. Chykalenko’s Levko for from Poltava Ippolit Kapnist, who solicited the ultra-right Minister of Education Lev Kasso reputation of a right-wing Octobrist. Hewrote aletter to the Octobrist deputy of State Duma a had Leontovych Volodymyr nationalist a Ukrainian of brother The contacts. social his University for wasrejected forPetersburg the “political unreliability,”of used Chykalenko status implied mutual Forexample,support. inwhen 1912, Chykalenko’s son’s application becausetheir social in butalso compatible, some cases agendastheir appeared political forbe aspirations. Ukrainian advantageous was expected to Polish representation institutions in Western provinces would generally serve public and good, the restraintof self-government that thought nationalists Ukrainian ones. Polish the over landlords Russian in Westernof introduction zemstvos KKRN ranaproject of whichfavored provinces however, annexation, after politics in never province the bewailed fact. they this Before the elections to the State Duma in 1912 KKRN campaigned together withOctobrists. Ibid, 196-197In the See Yevhen Chykalenko, SeeYevhen See Vas’ko Tkach, “Pid podviynoyu opekoyu,”in A certain agreement between the two groups was caused not only by the fact that by only the wascausednot groups A two the between agreement certain 99 Sbornik kluba russkih natsionalistov. Shchodennyk, (Kyiv: Tempora, 2007) 98 Interestingly, Kapnist’s sister was a wife of an Rada 50 , May 5, 1910 V. 4-5 (Kiev: Tipografiya Kushnerevac°, i 97 96 Also, CEU eTD Collection in particular. In 1909 hebecame achiefcensorofKiev, for Ukrainian gave which reason document enragedhim nationalists Ukrainian against inKiev and Mykhaylo Hrushevs’kyi the of success the and conservatives, being of reputation the got Sobolevskiy Alexei repeal the restraint intended other Members the adocument to of whoprepared SciencesAcademy opposed imposed on the use of the Malorussian dialect. brochure. outin came a separate articles these Thus he together Kievlianin with hugeIn its Florinskiy has aftermath publishedof was scandal in raised. aseries articles deliverplannedspeeches on XI the their to Archaeologicalinina Ukrainian, Congress Kiev 100 Malorussian. that theFlorinskiy, later one of the most prominent spokesmen of nextKKRN, mockingly wished him leaderfuture of TUP his master’sMykhaylodefended Hrushevskyi thesis, Timofey dissertation of turn by the century.the the 1894, when was reinforced In purposes for academic suitable dialectfor use the aseligible be inacademiaand those onlyRussianwho considered to Malorussian the advocated who scholars those between tension The hesupporters. prominent would in originated mid-19 the defend in the same university would be in 101 07.06.2010) 4/2007. http://abimperio.net/cgi-bin/aishow.pl?state=showa&idart=2019&idlang=2&Code=(Accessed Alexandr Dmitriev,“Ukrainskaya nauka Iee imperskie konteksty (XIX- nachalo XX veka),” in Ibidem In 1904 Florinskiy as a Corresponding member of member of In 1904FlorinskiyasaCorresponding Petersburgthe Academy of The University of St. Vladimir was the domain were Ukrainian nationalism Ukrainian were domain the was Vladimir St. of University The level insider 4.2. The attacking the idea of useforlanguage In1901 attackingacademicpurposes. theideaof Ukrainian 100 inWhen 1899Hrushevkyi with hisfrom together colleagues Galicia th century, and here Russian nationalism had some of its most 51 101 Ab Imperio CEU eTD Collection response from response the editors of 104 103 published his correspondence with published hiscorrespondence butsuccess. achieved nobefore this court, AfterFlorinskiy the broughtcase he this language. literary Ukrainian the into translated be would text the that condition the under Ukrainian the than peasant for the more understandable isRussian that explained for the Southwestern peasantry than Russian. Florinskiy sent aresponse to scholars such Florinskiy as kept denying language Ukrainian that morewas understandable Florinskiy, inUkrainian which was reprinted translation in TUP member Modest Levytskyi an published article in Kadetthe newspaper to split not only first RussianEmpirethe andforemost but the Russian people. In1910the an introduced forged artificialversion language Ukrainian of the inGaliciaa purpose with censor. Eventually Florinskiy’s refused. was application His main argument was thatnomination. his campaign against to with a purpose capital ajouney the undertook to Peretts it didn’t pertain to a memberScience 1899he (since wasa nationalistCorresponding member),Ukrainian professor of Academy of Academy Petersburg of Member a of status the for of applied ScienceFlorinskiy when that noting, to be a 102 nationalists thinkhe fining to settledscores bymeans that personal of Ibid, 88 Ibidem Yevhen Chykalenko, This case is definitive for a number of reasons. First, it shows that in spite of Florinskiy regularly articlesin published usedby Ukrainian nationalists. Rech’ Rada , knowinglegal would thatbeno punishment, republishedthe there in Ukrainian. Shchodennyk , p. 87-88 104 Rada in Rada Kievlianin 52 agreed topublish hisresponse,however, Kievlianin and his response in his response and 103 claiming Hrushevskyithat had Rada . Levytskyi wrote that wrote . Levytskyi Rada. literary versionof Rada Rech’ Rech’ 102 in he which . After this It’s worth attacking CEU eTD Collection 106 105 scholar of Malorussian literature and history Nikolay Dashkevych died, Florinsky wrote: intointerest thepolitical program Ukrainian nationalism.of In1908,whena prominent from whodevelopeddistanced themselves “younger theirethnographic the generation” Malorussian studies in University the of VladimirSt. in the 1880s. in the engaged actively were who scholars the to belonged question Ukrainian/Malorussian which a gesture wholechanged the message. was Ukrainian literary into text Russian Florinskiy’s of translation the Also, “Malorussian.” Ukrainian nationalists,nationalists asan Ukrainian this advanced word used synonym to “Ukrainian”for Russiannationalists literary only meant version the Malorussianby usedof between interrelation question the convoluted languageof theuselanguage. and While of Thirdly, forces. a political itdisplays between different for adebate wasasite which indeed a itcommon by demonstrates media establishedregime. constitutional Second, space the Florinskiy’s highadministrative position a as chief censor, he couldnot trespass thelimits Timofey Florinskiy, “Pamiati N.P. Dashkevicha,” in Andrey Stororzenko, IvanSikorskiy, Dmitriy Pikhno The issues concerning Malorussian hadstudies anumber of implicationspractical in theories. affairscapable petty popular superficial dayandstanding above of the he was his a son of time, not he was setting, political contemporary the towards views his in as as well respect, this In language. scientific common destroydoctrines to unity the of Velikorussians andMalorussians ina he did and (narodnost’), nationalities Russian two adeepgulf between the interpose not sympathize aspire to late which of doctrines national parochial shared those never to the study history,of Malorussian and however, ethnography literature; he withmadecontribution common andhe acritical people, to the sincerely devoted those and closeby birth, the Malorussian folk (narod) childhood hewassince to efforts of the representatives of these the on extensively wrote who KKRN of members other with together Florinskiy 106 53 Kievlianin , February 6, 1908 105 However, they CEU eTD Collection writings. 12teachinggreatRussian andallotted 11hours to writers, hours toMalorussian teaching Russkiy (Russian)published course criticizingsyllabus, an article aRussianliterature which 109 108 exhibition of exhibition of Chernihiv tothe antiquities wide academic community. andputmuchhopeon the committee, Moscow from salaries received organization, Congress in the part active an took them of A lot non-participation. their by position in adifficult put also were Chernihiv from scientists nationalist Ukrainian Russia. Central from guests asamong well as scholars, nationalist Russian among frustration caused which for its Russophile character.participation Eventually, was attended, Congress poorly the in Archaeological Congress Chernihiv.scholars nationalist their denounced The Ukrainian community.academic apart tearingit was A the1908XIV casewas very peculiar emerged in cent. only XVIII literature late “Malorussian literature XV-XVIII cent.” for upon the academic convention the Malorussian Moreover, wasamust for literature student. every question called the author the title to Russian of detailed the great knowledge significance, while only and ethnographic regional Russkiy, “Otvet professor Lobode,” professor “Otvet Russkiy, Loboda,“Po povodu novoy skhemy prepodavaniya malorossiyskoy literatury,” Kievlianin 107 in inUniversity For example, 1908anauthor teaching. “XIV Vserossiyskiy sjezd v Chernigove” Ibidem Russkiy, “Novaya schema prepodavaniya istoriyi russkoy literatury v Universitete Sviatogo Vladimira,” The splitnot only misunderstandings thescholarswithin provoked and tensions,but , May 29, 1908; See also furtherdebate. The response of the head of the Literature chair G.A. 107 The argued11author that hoursmuch was forway too literature which the had Kievlianin Kievlianin , June 14. , June 108 54 , August 4, 1908 Kievlianin Kievlianin 109 under the nickname the under June 1, 1908; CEU eTD Collection tsarist regime maintaintsarist wasbureaucratism failure its vastand to territory and population. Firstly, it was cosmopolitan and, therefore, acted counter Russian national interests. Secondly, it was deeply was it Secondly, interests. national Russian counter acted therefore, and, cosmopolitan was it Firstly, 111 110 fire. to sultan’s square the started central the troops to came nothing.with Moreover,whenthey Sultan’sdistribute equally failed to ancillaries sultan’sand goods, people thus still remained first made people happyandgrateful,butsoon they after were bitterly disappointed. hehad. This and gaveall first,what butlater on agreed hesitated possessions. sultan The distant Far in Stebnytskyi Petro Eastby published story countrya short respect this In it. of implementation bad the about wrote they asked theirStolypin’s sultan project bureaucracy. of criticized never example, they of domination For and centralization was its Al-Djafarthe resettlement of toUkrainian help peasantswith people. from danger the tothe asliberators threatening themselves opponent they estimated to foodthe Middle from East, however,hiseach own other torecipients wassocial inevitably into enveloped Moreover,and debates. political they used earn sympathies Their of the Southwest. winningmass aimedsupport appeal both to at groups exclusive – of local population. By distancing themselves from the According to the views of Russian nationalists, bureaucratism was the biggest more of the Old Regime. Petro Stebnytskyi, “Bytyi shliakh,” in Petro Stebnytskyi, 110 Translating this allegorical tale intothe language of politics, the biggestfailure of the Russian nationalists also criticized bureaucratism. criticized also nationalists Russian Ukrainian nationalists endeavored to show that the problem of the RussianEmpire toshowthat problem Ukrainian nationalistsendeavored the of KKRN the TUP and mutually which the were The purposes pursued political level regional 4.3. The Rada is very telling. During the years of bad harvests the people of a 55 Vybrani tvory, 111 (Kiev: Tempora, 2009), p.234-244 However, while for the for while However, CEU eTD Collection 113 112 Rorzdenie I gibel’ Vserossiyskogo natsionalnogo soyuza corrupted and did not fulfill its role. Daniil Kotsiubunskiy, for people. of the benefitandthe work seekprofit once at can capitalist Russian society. in the exist which conventions cultural breaking isin manner, entrepreneur of business capable the running a proper and not ofmanwhich sort up.On shouldn’ta decent contrary,the take aRussian a dirty business is not It of enterprise. the anowner bea capitalist, Russian to imitation: for examples sense in acertain Kharytonenko, and Tereshchenko multi-millionaires Malorussian two depicted he how interesting is it sense Russians that could restore healththe itscapitalism predatory of andalleviate nature. In this Moreover,hebelieved undertakings. andcommercial businesses their own dwellers with bourgeois niche. very whileimportant a careerof Jewsoccupy a bureaucrat, Russian people seekthe problem Russian of the manypeople. Savenko young complainedtimes inhiswritings that the was it nationalists Russian for State, the of a problem was it nationalists Ukrainian Anatoliy Savenko, “Zametki,” in See forexample Anatoliy Savenko, ”Zametki,” in Saying this Savenko meant to show that it was absolutely normal for a for normal absolutely was it that show to meant Savenko this Saying economic activity far and wide. activity economic andholdings/estates spreading the influence ofhealthy agricultural and capital inland,the elevating predominantly greatly culture in their their invested and land, the to drawn been always had earth of sons the bubblenever supported schemes. Noteworthy, multi-millionairesboth as sila).force They (promyshlennaya ahealthy manufacturing represented intoventures.manipulation Stockmarket alwayspassed by. them They theirbusiness directly and independently, and none of them ever rushed only butremarkablyoutstanding, minds.conducted sober Russian Both Both multi-millionaires were pure Malorussians and possessed both not 112 Savenko wanted Russian people to become a modern class of urban Kievlianin , April, 26, 1908 113 Kievlianin 56 (Moscow:Rosspen, 2001), p.133-140 Russkiy natsionalism v nachale XXstoletiya. , March 3, 1909 CEU eTD Collection veneration of the local culture and history. Similarly, Ukrainianness was something alien something was Ukrainianness Similarly, history. and culture local the of veneration artistic meaning because they tried to follow Russian style instead of cherishing their own. its however, misinterpreted constantly theatre; splendidUkrainian of Malorussians example and go thus savagesgo wild who dancing drinking after alcohol.imitate Malorussians try to this style, 114 stagingtroop Ukrainian the “Natalka Poltavka”: play In conflict. 1910 an Pavloauthor Nedolia wrote down his impressions from a Malorussian not ableis recognize inevitably Malorussianness to oneself. absurdity leadand inner to Ukrainianthe people. BeingMalorussian wasof astate whena unconsciousness, Ukrainian artistry. Similarly, Malorussian mutual and refined culture, consciousness, basedontolerance, political understanding was regarded habits, manners,insensitivity, rough and asUkrainianness while with was associated a more a symptom of imposed Russianness meantbackwardness, passivity,“Russian” political compared Ukrainians. the often to savage over Pavlo Nedolia, “Malorosy, soyuznyky i natsional’na svidomist’” in For the Russian nationalists being Malorussian meant knowing their roots, their knowing meant Malorussian being nationalists Russian the For This quote is very peculiar for a number of reasons. Russians are presented as are headingofftocelebrate of artists but rathersuch a disgusting andunbearably spectacleit that painful reminded onenot of god-fearing (Nikol’s’ka), Horpyna old let’s or they say danced. This was starting from the wise and god-fearing Natalka and ending with the no-less- “Malorussians”famous Everyone haverewardedthepublic. capered, useless and frenzied senseless, this forgive: the“Malorussians.” charmsthespian of way noinonecan thing But we other and caricatures impossible manner, Russian the into words Ukrainian twisting roles, their knowing not artists: prominent forgive We could as Russians the of image a negative provide to tried constantly nationalists Ukrainian hopak dancing when it is not appropriate. The “Natalka Poltavka” wasa The“Natalkaappropriate. it Poltavka” is dancing not when savages who have savages gotten atasteofmoonshineand [text highlighting -OM]. 57 hopak Rada 114 dancing with which , May 21, 1910 CEU eTD Collection to subjugateto others, instead of forstruggling one’s – right they struggle of againstrights attempt they nationalism, real in the as self-liberation, the of “Instead nationalism: Russian merely hampering anyinitiativeprogressive society. inthe In 1914 and saw this organization’s affirmative KKRN, the the of ignored program as objective whichany theagainst change.inevitably social They of State positive ran representative synonyms, which did not necessarily reflect the political situation. KKRN for KKRN situation. political the necessarily reflect not did which synonyms, On conservative group. pages the of depict KKRNtriedthe as nationalist a deeply Ukrainian to and avery reactionary imbedded in mindsthe of Southern Russians.” will inevitably “Ianswer: am Russian.” concept of The unitythe of is Russian people deeply know the word “Malorussian”Malorussianbeingtime meantdoesn’t theMalorussian present Russian.“At the peasant at all. If you ask Malorussian about his national origin, he 117 gibel’ Vserossiyskogo natsionalnogo soyuza meaning of word.”the Cited Daniilin Kotsiubunskiy, Malorussian is alien to me. I hold dearly my motherland – Ukraine, and basically I am Ukrainophile in the old 116 115 Savenko. Ukrainophilia my all with strength, atreacherous and despicable movement.” legends, justloveandhistory; khokhols. as lazyandkind-hearted ButIdespise I Malorussian, and Ihold dearly my its motherland,marvelous traditions, nature, language ideas, which came from Galiciaand Ukrainianness imposed. artificially was influencean ofnewly emerged doctrines and under the Polish influence. “I myself – am a pure-blood Anatoliy Savenko, “Zametki,” in Savenko constantly emphasized that was he apure-blooded Malorussian.“I am Malorussian, and nothing Anatoliy Savenko, “Zametki,” in The political representation of the rival group displays apeculiar displays tendency. the group The rival of representation political 116 Moreover, Malorussianness inno with sense contradicted Russianness. Being Kievlianin Kievlianin (Moscow:Rosspen, 2001), p. 303-304 , May 15, 1908 , May 15, 1908 Rada 58 Russkiy natsionalism v nachale XX stoletiya. Rorzdenie I 117 the KKRN and the Black Hundreds were Rada wrote about wrote 115 Rada –wrote was CEU eTD Collection their views. their inclinedare for to take agendaof the granted and group opposite the run thus to contrary 119 faction of Kadet right and case –Octobrists inMoreover, nationalist Russian the their they that considered allies, level. local the impose on power to hasof chances alot andin way this Imperial centers the in hardsupport politicalconsidered win oneworks opposite success.Both groups the that to for important was opinion and public Moscow. of decision-making, centers Thesewerethe 118 Empire and Russianpeople. Russian the of interests the about cared never who cosmopolitans of lot a were there guise its under that nationalist, being from far was movement Ukrainian the fact in that show to tried KKRN social-revolutionaries. became youth nationalist Ukrainian of number great force. years a with anyin This 1913-1914 when of revolutionary the was especially true in movement second part and chorus of the liberationistthe wereeagertoany compromise the Russian Empire and Russian nationinto parts. They tried toshow that the TUP sang the others, instead of legitimate self-defense – they undertake a violent attack.” See “Mazepinskaya opasnost’,” See“Mazepinskaya A.P. Rada, Both the KKRN and the TUP constantly tried to win support in St. Petersburg and Petersburg in St. support win to tried constantly TUP the and KKRN the Both level imperial 4.4. The Similarly, KKRN represented Ukrainian movement as the one intended only to split to only intended one the as movement Ukrainian represented KKRN Similarly, February 28, 1914. s , and nationalist in Ukrainian case –Kadet 119 Kievlianin , March 3, 1914. 59 s except for right faction, 118 CEU eTD Collection schools projectthe ofintroduction of Ukrainian language as a medium instructionof in primary 120 Russia, butis a genuine Russia, because this was the place where Russia had originated, and of merely a region not was Malorussia that was Savenko’s message Moreover, position. political active an with dweller urban intelligent an be could a Malorussian that show to meant He lifestyle. countryside the to limited not is Malorussianness that public Russian mud huts. manyaccepted showAlthough Savenko to stereotypes, hetriedthese to the of habits. A marvelous andnitsceneries with depicted serenerural nature number of artists eating and cuisine Malorussian to fame the brought climate warm The music. in skillful relaxed,lazy, with sensehumor, kind-hearted, of good witty,hospitable, sensitive, and as represented Theywere characteristics. animalistic or female with often Malorussians, Malorussia. Traditionally stereotypes about the “People of the South” were used in depicting Russiannationaliststhat incombatnumber Kievtried of a to superstitions towards evidence gives It circumstances. Southwestern the about provinces central from Russians Anatoliy Savenko, “Zametki,” in : think thatwe Malorussians live in cherry in orchards, white mud huts,eat Malorussiaideasame vague have Russia. astheFrench about about They Octobrists’ incomprehension and ignorance question. in this They have the Russian of because complicated evenmore becomes The situation This citation shows not only Savenko’s concern with the little knowledge of knowledge little the with concern Savenko’s only not shows citation This upon the ignorance of those to whom itis offered. Russian, thatmembers. indeedMalorussians thatcan believe They don’tunderstand Russianclaims is indeed contained circumstancesalien toin Malorussians.thedumplings explanatory Russian OctobristsFor note every allto the lie canday draftrelies swallow longbill ofwhole theand 37the Duma swearoffensively in falsethe Malorussian dialect.In 1908 inwrote the Anatoliy Savenko In these Kievlianin , May 15, 1908 60 Kievlianin 120 on the State Duma debates about CEU eTD Collection “National Acquisitions of Ukrainians,” and “Ukrainianness in Regard to the Russian State Russian the to Regard in “Ukrainianness and Ukrainians,” of Acquisitions “National Self-Determination,” Its of Expression an as Present and Past in Its Movement National question” had 4sections – “The Major idea,” of Elements Ukrainian “Ukrainian National Ukrainian “The force. liberal and democratic as movement national Ukrainian and nation byRussia’s enemies. initiated enterprise Ukrainian the state represented Also, the authors inorganic”life,folkan roots phenomena with not deep the andartificially constructed 4 editions.wentthrough show This brochure thethat Ukrainian to movement aimed was “an Russian community. progressive addressed tothe itIt hadacertain success–until 1918 a Oleksandr Lototskyi,brochurein language“The theRussian wrote Ukrainian question,” nation. distinct a were still but separatists not were they that show to wanted they governments, financed force by the andtreacherous haveAustrian a dangerous and been German stronger positions in Petersburg.St. Since thelatter claimed the Ukrainian movementto had Dumain State and the represented were widely who nationalists, Russian media of the from movement Ukrainian the about learned often public Russian that fact the with concerned much were nationalists Ukrainian Nevertheless, such. as movement Ukrainian of little of success spite the force bea reckonedto with. Yevhenin his diary manyinChykalenko repeated that times meaning public the symbolic movementit Ukrainian that for them:exists toandwas proved act of lotbravery since itrequired a of andefforts But financial support. nationalism. Russian of domain the was this In 1914 two Ukrainian nationalists from nationalistsfrom In Ukrainian 1914 two Petro Petersburg, StebnytskyiSt. and For nationalistsmaintaining Ukrainian the adailynewspaper aheroic deedand was Rada among readers in Southwest it was “a banner” of the of banner” “a was it in Southwest readers among 61 Rada had ahuge CEU eTD Collection 121 theircarry Ukrainian movementgainedout into wellmore to politics opportunities MalorussiannessUkrainians inthemselves. The nationdominant failedabsorb to Ukrainianness, and the is a symbol peel MalorussiansRussian imposed hadto andoff culture discover artificially the of this symptom natureof which in Ukrainian brooded souls the of Russifiedthe Ukrainians. transience. And during the World War I the Ukrainianness deeply buried in their souls. werepreserved,even but upper class features the hadintrinsically asparkof Ukrainian upper classthin a nevertheless but reasons, many for of failed assimilation the This repression. societyadministrative became the was partof which assimilation however,fellproject, Russian, 1654 Russian the after under bearer of Russian culture. In the lowerintended combat to vehementprejudices Ukrainians about createdby Russian nationalists. classwas part fourth The artists. and more theater-players, journalists, scholars, writers, Ukrainian was an part of overview of language;thethird gainscontemporary of Ukrainian the Ukrainian nationalism with focuson the administrativethe restrictions imposed on use the language, type, anthropological and economic traditions; thesecond history presented a of Culture.” discussedThe first part the differencesbetween Ukrainians andin Russians The Ukrainian Question As we see, the MalorussianVitaliy with his cult of Cossack tombs. Savenkos, Skoropadskies, Shul’gins, suchis Kapnists, monk the ofPochaev culture nowadays’ are Ukraine. Such pastof historical the to sympathies retrospective primitive one, in revealed theform inof interest Ukrainian ethnography and was supposedtime from can one society Ukrainian of to elements timeconservative most the among Even notice by a peculiarthe authorsform of national toconsciousness, be a however, very adistinctnationUkrainians argued from The authors that hadalwaysconstituted (St. Petersburg, 1914), p. 108 62 121 CEU eTD Collection themselves from alien Russian culture and its hybrid Malorussianness. in topurge historic reverse path order their thatUkrainians hadto practice, claiming 63 CEU eTD Collection life. Shevchenko, Iwill endeavor toshowwhich implication practical these debates had in daily the keyissues.monument of to Taras were ascribed to usinga project of erection Also, the Empire. the across all Russians among feelings awaken national to expected was which political agenda, their asadomainstatus Thismirrored consciousness. Russianof national Malorussia true of moreover,monarchism, andspecial secureda to Malorussia loyalty emphasized of the Ukrainian/Malorussian history, and about the key also historical figures. and KKRN literary interpretation of debates aboutthe of werealot there during 1908-1914 level, sameacademic the of history of version never an alternative provided nationalists among Russian nationalists.many provokedadeepdiscontent others, Although Russian as well Russian peoples. between as three This work, andunity notion widely of used the thus challenged the official by volumesversion MykhayloHrushevsky, acontinuity folkUkrainian presented of ( of Russian history basedarguments tospeak for“The adistinct culture. History in of published Ukraine-Rus,” 11 on the history of a statehood,language andatranslation of Holy the Script. All of gaveUkrainianthis nationalists asetof movement had already possessed its own version of history, a dictionary of the Ukrainian In this chapter Iwill try inquireto intothese debates and present the meanings which By 1908,when confrontationthe betweenKKRNandSUP began, the Ukrainian Implications Practical Chapter 5: The Interpretations ofCultural Heritage andTheir 64 narod ) and CEU eTD Collection Kiev. in churches mediaeval of ruins of preservation of projects of implementation solicited Kievlianin antiquity. of knowledge to tight closely is idea national the that stated, archaeologist Vikentiy Khvoyko had Kievan allegedly acropolis. found remainswas of It a manor where buy the volume of out first aneedto Yearbook, the they advocated 1910 before elections the tocity council Ivan Sikorsky said in his speech: Kiev is a Russian city, they tended to view it that asonly thenot birthplace claimed they However, of cities.” RussiannessRussian of All “A Mother as ( Kiev regarded 122 later. north the a few centuries medievalhomeUkrainians, Kievan Ruswasancestral while people of emerged Russian on 125 124 meditsyny. http://www.rusinst.ru/articletext.asp?rzd=1&id=997&abc=1(Accessed 15.05.2009) 123 http://history.org.ua/LiberUA/Book/UaRu/1/5_1.pdf (accessed 30.05.2010) Lytvyn, I.M. Dziuba, Ya. D. Isayevych. V.1. (Kyiv:NaukovaDumka, 2004). Olexiy Tolochko, “Dovha istoriya Ukrayiny,” in XIV Vserossiyskiy sjezd v Chernigove, Quote: T. Kal’chenko. Ivan Sikorsky. Uchenyi-psiholog, teoretik natsionalisma, publitsyst, doctor Sbornik kluba russkih natsionalistov. 125 After 1908 Anatoliy Savenko wrote extensively that it was a shame to Kiev that it muchnationalists archeologicalRussianthe investigation care took aboutKiev. of In Tracing Ukrainiansof from thetribes,Slavic history Hrushevsky claimed the that Nationalism ofRussian Stronghold a and Cities” of Russian as “A All Mother 5.1. Kiev followedin detail The in Archeological Congress andAugust subsequently 1908, to say: we are the sons of a great nation, and in historic Kiev we are the masters! the are Kievwe inhistoric and nation, great of a sons the we are say: to motherland and city to strengthenthe newly built Russian stronghold. It is high time forus national life is moving to Kiev, and it is a supreme duty of Kievans towards their the nationally conscious Russiancommunity. The significance of the centerof Russian national life inRussia. Moscow after1905 has also lost its moral standing in the eyes of All of Russia looks at Kiev. St. Petersburg has never been a meaningful leader of 122 (Kiev: Tipografiya KushnerovaK°, i 1909). P.16. This posed a challenge to Russian nationalists who nationalists Russian to challenge a posed This Kievlianin Ukrayina I Rosiya v istorychniy perspektyvi , August, 4,1908 65 123 124 russkost’ , ed. V.M. Similarly, ). In CEU eTD Collection 1908 Russian nationalists partin in aservice took themainmonastery Kiev Kievo-of September In heretical. as presented was movement Ukrainian the Thus, Church. Orthodox by Russian anathematized he was implication: important one hadalso of Mazeppa trait support Austriaand wouldnationalists allegedly Germany. Ukrainian The Swedes, were the implied that the separatist collaborated with an enemy state. While in case of Mazepa theseformoniker Ukrainian nationalists. was Mazepian separatist,butsynonymousalso to Peter I andwas against in defeated afterwards the famous battle asa Poltava, of served erection of a monument to Stolypin. Olga wasunveiledPetrStolypinand its activityKKRN wasassassinated, redirected towards remained unfinished.Supposedly,happenedSt. monument because to day this the when However,monument onlytoSt. Olga the putupin was 1911, therestof project while the inKiev September 1911. undertaking by donatingrubles. The10thousand tsarsupported together with the monument Sagaydachnyy,Monomakh, Petro Mogyla.first Petro The monumentwas tobe unveiled of AlexandrMykhaylivsky cathedrals. These figures were:St. Olga, kniaz’ Jaroslav Wise,the Volodymyr II during and Sophia St. between alley the Nicolas through stretch would Rus’ which Kievan Medieval II and Petr Stolypin’s project of “Historical –an pathway” ensemble of monuments ofhistorical10 figuresof visit a with up came nationalists Russian Eventually, to heroes. medieval its to monuments no had The name of Hetman Ivan Mazepa, who allied in 1709 with Swedish king Karl XII Karl king Swedish with 1709 in allied who Mazepa, Ivan Hetman of name The Russia New the and Mazepians, 5.2. Mazepa, 66 CEU eTD Collection 129 128 127 126 most active part in hosting Tsar Nicolas II and Petr Stolypin. delivered. were political speeches celebration and inKiev,to goPoltavainorganized protest, aseparate where these which was in charge of the celebration, disallowed these political speeches. KKRN refused Malorussians unity tothe Rossiya).”Russia (yedinayaof failure Defeatof mazepians, and crushing Ukrainian of separatism (the loyalty the of where they planned to deliver a speech on “the significance of the Battle of Poltava and the II Yearbook members inof KKRN, its inPoltava, appliedfor participation theCelebration celebration of the Battle of Poltava, where the tsar Nicolas II was present. According to the anniversary of the Battle of Poltava Savenko wrote: 200 of celebrations the before A year importance. universal a of event great a as was erected. them to monument Mazepa’sMazeppa’sabout I hadinformedcompanions Peter twowho trait. inAnd 1914 a speech. delivered a where Savenko Lavra, Pecherska Ibidem Anatoliy Savenko, Zametki in Sbornik kluba russkih natsionalistov. Sbornik kluba russkih natsionalistov. for it brought Russia as a new factor into the forefront of world’s cultural and political life. political and cultural world’s of forefront the into factor a new as Russia brought it for of Battle The Poltava. near of this Poltava all appeared to be an importantaccomplished pointrather but not only of Neva, in Russian banks history,the on not but also inthe Europe, historyinto of Europe, window a opened and deeds great his I consolidated Peter Russia. New created ofPoltava Battle The defeat… leader’s first of their anniversary of 200 occasion onthe mourning demonstrationby separatists.Ukrainian And the next yearHrushevsky’s party would gointo undertaking the brought Malorussia, of Bogdanand Khmelnytskyof Great to finala end. unification the The treason of Mazepaaccomplished and the MazepistsPoltava of was the battle lastthe vigorous… Interestingly Interestingly inenough, 1909 Russian nationalists didparticipate in not a huge also nationalists Russian by interpreted was Mazepa over victory the Nevertheless, Kievlianin (Kiev: Tipografiya KushnerovaK°, i 1910). P. 60 (Kiev: Tipografiya KushnerovaK°, i 1909). P.&&& 129 , July 24, 1908 However,years two after, in 1911,KKRNthe took 67 126 HepraisedandKochubey, Iskra 128 An Associate Commision, Associate An 127 th CEU eTD Collection Gogol in Moscow, another should be erected in Kiev. “While a Malorussian monument to monument Malorussian a “While Kiev. in be erected should another Moscow, in Gogol monumentMalorussia, argued Nikolay although to already thatGogol. He exists a there nationalists. Russian by cherished those to closer much were ideals Shevchenko’s contrary, the On socialist. not liberal, neither was agenda political Shevchenko’s that showmeant Jews he to By Poles. uncompromisingtowards and of Shevchenko this hatred idealsnurtured freedom, andof brotherhood equality all nations.of Savenko at pointed the poems his in Shevchenko that a statement contained it because monument the for donations of compatible. example,inhim arenot he For brochure criticizedencouraging 1909 the 130 ‘particularity’” cultural independent Ukrainian nation not only isexists, but alsoconsciousits about national and and separate a that clearly show to want Naumenkos and Grushevskies The demonstration. for Ukrainian-separatist servesasacause only latter - the monument the about even not is it fact, In monument. the of erection the of out demonstration political a making reading be of tendentious.to Shevchenko In1908 Savenko wrote: “Ukrainophiles are constantly targeted use the by Ukrainian nationalistsShevchenkoof their and proved talented artistshis and Malorussia of local sense they praised of By samethe tongue. token, most the of one as him recognized they contrary, the On works. literary his and Shevchenko 131 Anatoliy Savenko, “Zamietki” in Anatoliy Savenko, “Zamietki” in Savenko often juxtaposed Shevchenko with another prominent writer from writer prominent another with Shevchenko juxtaposed often Savenko Russian nationalists hadRussian nationalists never aclear-cut expressed towards negative attitude ofShevchenko Treason the and ofGogol, Genius The 5.3. 130 . Savenko’s point was that Shevchenko and Ukrainian treatment Ukrainian and Shevchenko that was point Savenko’s . Kievlianin Kievlianin , 27.04.1908 , 14.04.1909 68 131 CEU eTD Collection basing onhis readingof seditiousthe poems. order tojustify In his negative position he Kharkov governor, and latter addressed this the issuetoPetrStolypin. seditive partof Shevchenko’s poerty. The bishop delivered this Synod information andto Kharkov bycalling bishop’s the Ukrainian on launched activists an the attack to attention forgedLobodovsky the original His fraudtext. gounnoticed, didn’t andthus Lobodovsky Shevchenko– for thepoem alargecontains of portion provesedition. In order to this to belong didn’t originally and forged was “Maria” poem Shevchenko’s that prove to tried first latter The Lobodovsky. movement national Ukrainian of member elderly the members of Romanovs’ family. According Chykalenko, thisincident to happened because of Shevchenko’s poems inappropriatehighly for they attitude expressed abhorrent towards since in1906 Petersburg. St. The official foundadministration some of excerpts Kiev. forbidden on However, thebiggestshock wasa editions confiscation “Kobzar” all of Thedeath. arrival wasbanned,andmassgatherings were Galician the of deputation restrictions imposed onthe upcoming celebration of 50 the Anniversary of Shevchenko’s 132 activist political and national a great of aggrandizement was just aduerespect toagenial writer, butthe monumentGogol in to Kiev would bean would remainspeechlessin thissense monument all-Russian an Russia, a unified of part integral an itself considers himself) Gogol would loudly and strongly tell the whole world that all Malorussia (and Gogol 133 134 Anatoliy Savenko, “Zamietki” in Anatoliy Savenko, “Zamietki” in Evhen Chykalenko, Approximately at the same time Savenko revised his attitude towards Shevchenko, towards attitude hisrevised Savenko time same the Approximately at In February 1911 by nationalistswerebitterly Ukrainian disappointed a number of Shchodennyk , V. 1., (Kyiv: Tempora, 2004). p. 160 Kievlianin Kievlianin 132 , 16.04.1908 , 16.04.1908 ” – wrote Savenko in Savenko 1908. ” –wrote A monumentMoscow 69 133 . 134 CEU eTD Collection 135 own editions of Shevchenko’s poetry for secondary schools where Shevchenko was “anti-Romanov” side of Shevchenko’s poetry. However, Russian nationalists organized their Russian tothe Ukrainian nationalists nationalistrestrictions appealed towards endeavors nationalistsin a curious manner –while vindicating the necessity administrative of sides of Shevchenko, Malorussian and anti-Romanov, were played out by Russian in deep his soul rather avictim but Russia. tendenciesin of separatist South Ukrainophileof group Cyrill which meansand Methodius, Shevchenko wasnot that a traitor a typical be to Shevchenko claimed Savenko Therefore, controversial. highly as poetry Shevchenko’s Empresswho -all Katherine in figuresII, nobility in strengthened South, appeared the these with Moscow backgroundfor Orthodoxchurch, Bogdan Khmelnytsky, underrule whose united Hetmanate Tsardom,a set and Rus ancient baptized who Volodymyr, St. empire. of parts between ties strong Peter I, whoestablished historical that persons to those exactly attitude anegative Shevchenko nurtured established unitydisdain towards Russian empireof anditsleaders. prominent Savenkonoticed that Russian deep expressed more andtherefore much than with Russia, Malorussia with concerned Empire as was contrary,the On role. a Shevchenko a secondary to interests Malorussian him put European State, with “fatherland”, andmade associated term the patriotism, was much stronger which all-Russian Savenko’s However, painter. prominent a as well as word, Malorussian of andmaster nature tongue, for history. Shevchenkohe wasagreat him made appreciate This As motherland,his of a patriot wasMalorussia, hewas deeply which byits local touched ( motherland of notions the between distinction a drew Sbornik Kluba Russkihnatsionalistov mazepian . However, his political views, Savenko asserted, were influenced were by views, Savenko. However,asserted, hispolitical . V. 3 (Kiev: TipografiaKushnereva iK, 1911). p. 20 70 rodina ) and fatherland ( 135 Thesetwo otechestvo ). CEU eTD Collection stolitniogo yuvileyu.MA thesis, manuscript. 2009 136 wouldhealthy and be wouldn’t sufferfrom inner controversies. figureThe Shevchenko of the “father of Ukrainian nation” would create an image of a singlebody of the nation, which members of Ukrainianthe movementbetween and 1905 1914.Unveiling of a monument to him as a prominent Malorussian, notUkrainian, artist. by 1911 split they Shevchenko’s and“bright” figureinto “dark” sides, they kept vindicating readings literary nationalists hisheritage. more radical byproviding responded of Although of Shevchenko’s of ignorant Anniversary any national feelings. celebration were the on restrictions legal against demonstrations mass of participants in peril” “Mazepian author, article whopublishedan anonymous An youth. black-hundred and socialist between clashes in resulted eventually were forbidden, nevertheless, differentrevolutionary organizedgroups whichmass protest, spontaneously. 100 of occurred that Celebrations together all sorts of revolutionary groups. This was a direct response tomass demonstrations glorified as Malorussian patriot. Juriy Chepela. Dyskusiyi navkolo monumenta Tarasovi Shevchenku v Kyyevi naperedodni yoho naperedodni v Kyyevi Shevchenku Tarasovi monumenta navkolo Dyskusiyi Chepela. Juriy The monument to Taras Shevchenko was one of the most important endeavors for endeavors important most the of one was Shevchenko Taras to monument The TarasShevchenko of The monument 5.4. of So, in course by promotion Shevchenkothe Ukrainian activists, Russian figure the of that Taras regretted nationalists drew In 1914Russian Shevchenko 136 71 th afterAnniversary Shevchenko’s birth Kievlianin , made a statement that the CEU eTD Collection Dyskusiyi navkolo monumenta Tarasovi Shevchenku v Kyyevi naperedodni yoho stolitniogo yuvileyu. MA yuvileyu. stolitniogo thesis, manuscript. 2009 yoho naperedodni vKyyevi Shevchenku Tarasovi monumenta navkolo Dyskusiyi of Poltava council solicited members a 1906 permission in However, to Gogol. gather and Glinka donations unlike all-over significance Russian was empireMalorussian, local, only Shevchenko to have – Empire recognized of the part South-Western in only allowed the first was Interestingly, of donations donations. collection for campaign announced council Poltava permission, its gave Affairs Internal the was there region Poltava in - biggest ratiohaphazard not ofis Malorussian population, initiative of this also,origin it was a placeprovincial ofThe Shevchenko’s1914. 9, March origin.in After the Ministry of upravlenie firstthe serious campaignstarted in1904-1905 by Poltava governorate council ( 137 Shevchenko’s death in Itdeclaredbe monumentwould inKievthe 100 work. placed that on the March 9, 1914. The composition of the committeereading and rethinking Shevchenko’s heritage in tofaceorder off Ukrainian claims. and its numberby Ukrainian nationalists. This made Russian nationalists itself striving a closer undertake him cherished of and cult the as anartist Shevchenko between wasadiscrepancy there that show to They Shevchenkotheyattacked. that hard to Ukrainian worked activists ascribed Tolstoy, but his local significance a circle Russiannot regardedlike writers. of greatas Hewas a genius and Leo Gogol was surely nationalistsadmitted. Shevchenko dismissed as aprominent poet of Malorussia and expelled himfrom It was rather theRussian nationalists theirendeavors. disdained This, however, mean doesn’t thatRussian political role that forsuitable any interpretation. political and those living in the Romanov byGalicians Moreover, Shevchenkointelligentwas praisedequally andcossack. peasant, Empire. Last, but notpotential TarasUkrainians. Shevchenkoimages combinedconveniently of Ukrainian least, Shevchenko’s writingswas called were to unite all of the scattered groups of Ukrainian nationalists as well as attract Although an idea to erect a monument to Taras Shevchenko appeared immediately after his death in 1861, in death his after immediately appeared Shevchenko Taras to monument a erect to idea an Although In 1908an Associate Committee forSetting upShevchenko’s itsstarted Monument As much institutionalizedas Ukrainianactivists cult the of Taras Shevchenko, ). original The ideawas to put up a monument to mark the 100 72 th Anniversary of Shevchenko’s birth of Shevchenko’s Anniversary Poltavskoe zemskoe 137 . Juriy Chepela. th anniversary anniversary from 137 CEU eTD Collection which were peasants. The whole area was traditionally seen as sacred place of Kiev, of place which assacred seen traditionally area was whole The peasants. which were one of the most in heropopular with nearby Sophia this area –Mykhaylivsky together St. cathedral cathedral were national their accommodate destinations to happy than more were nationalists Ukrainian Shevchenko. of Orthodoxcame to Therefore, previous spot square). the European square, today – it(Alexandr II Christianbe located near Mykhaylivsky cathedral,but pilgrims, later on city council allotted a “better” place for a Alexandrand Taras II large Initially, Shevchenko. monumentto Alexandr the supposedto was II number of wasdecided. design the nor place, neither the yearbepress, by themonument conceived of finished, the 1914, when wasoriginally to placeproper monument the for and of projects. runningcompetitions artistic a allotting collection, weredonations Committee the of major concerns The nationalists. well as members of the Kiev Council, as and art-critics of artists wasanumber there in Committee the present activists Ukrainian a small numberwith Along decision-making. in role of significant whom played they that so wereCommittee, the into regarded as Russian bringmembers milieu of managedto numberUkrainian aconsiderable their candidates of itsvaried history, across from lasted adecade 1905 till which 1914. However,in 1908 The Kiev city council took up simultaneously two monument projects – to the tsar the to – projects monument two simultaneously up took council city Kiev The vs Downtown Space 5.5. Sacred wasAlthough large active highly andreceived Committee the ina publicity the 73 CEU eTD Collection Some Ukrainian activists, nevertheless, also found this place inappropriate forfoundinappropriate thesquare thisplacealso nevertheless, Some Ukrainian activists, 139 stolitniogo yuvileyu.MA thesis, manuscript. 2009 138 Ukraine’...” same‘Independent the same nation,history and one in the one and of the monumentof ‘unforgettable Taras’,Shevchenko saying asif links areand that Golden Gates only remnant of the power, great Kiev a as Kiev of monuments fortress,magnificent these Gates, Golden The combination. and nearby this grey and sacredlater. wehaveaperfect “So, this trenchantlyon idea: commented Anatoliy Savenko antiquity there will stand Rusa was originally a Ukrainian schemeproposed of Ukrainian history since one of Grushevsky’s points was thatKievan state whileline into of the Kiev.of sacred old, in fell it part perfectly Moreover, the area wasstill Russians emerged onlatter, yetthe tothe comparing “secular” was place former The cathedral. Mykhaylivsky the North few centuries near one the to alternative 1908 as in time first for the wasexpressed Gates Golden called near Golden Gates, Peter’s alley on the slope of Kievan hills, and Karavaev Square. a square were: locations discussed most spot. widely Among another over the contemplate to obliged Mykhaylivsky cathedral. wasthus behind The Committee square Associate the on monument Shevchenko’s of instead monument Olga’s St. place to Council City alook.” prayif least take at not “[one] would in by of peasants: large Chykalenkothe hisdiary acommentone on peasants. impact wrote a have would churches these to route pilgrimage on Shevchenko of monument the placing that believed nationalists Ukrainian Christianity. Orthodox for significance major a had Anatoliy Savenko, “Zamietki” in yoho naperedodni v Kyyevi Shevchenku Tarasovi monumenta navkolo Dyskusiyi Chepela. Juriy The idea of placing Shevchenko’sin monument squarenearthe medieval ruins However,in March 1911 Russian nationalists successfully held in acampaign the Kievlianin , 27.04.1908. 74 138 139 . CEU eTD Collection 140 relevant for the this would disturb whileviewingpeople themonument. Even prominentmore importantly,it not was Ukrainianwouldnever gotothatplace, nor intelligentpeople would. The trafficflow washuge, and poet to stand werealotdowntown, there of shoppingof it stalls,rows filthy and shabby.was Peasants in the middle located inJewish was in1912. location square Chykalenko, Karavaev According to of the Jewish ghetto whoeven hisChykalenko, in dropped asagainst Committee membershipthe a protest this – ensemble. nearby. Ukrainian build theatre monument could This anice with the have edifice created However, some have becausethere been to plans This place Ukrainian to appealing activists seemed there were March17,1911established on square(today’s aplace Karavaev at LeoTolstoy square). a lot of critics of thistheir bundles with themselves just tosee the monument.” location. “Tsar’saccess tothe they area),andeven if “carry wouldn’tweren’t, they (nearby gardens” Among them weredenied Moreover, peasants from shore. the accessible behardly itself would monument Yevhenthe wasthat problem However, the appropriate. was “audience” the that so churches, the observed ships the from down running river.the These shipsmostly delivered pilgrims to be buriedonthe slopes of hills nearriver. Dnipro Thewould monument be perfectly attractive to Evhen Chykalenko, for it would comply with the will of Taras Shevchenkoby. to pass lot of wherepeople a crossroads the on and space bein theopen placedto Shevchenko behind Golden Gates was small and shabby – these people wanted the monument of Taras Shevchenko v epistoliariyi viddilurukopysiv (Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1966). P. 414 The aforementioned places were rejected by the Associate Committee, place supposed wasattheendAnother Peter’s of alley. seemedvery Thisspot which 75 140 CEU eTD Collection a matter of a matter artists’ imagination. vaguely; requirements were stated monument theslogan of andthe its appearance remained The display. should monument the that looks general and idea the of vision clear a have would serve a base for the the which one as recognized was competition presentedthe on of None projects the 1914. monument. In fact, the problemheldShevchenkoby were the Associateyears Committee within –1910,1911, 4 and 1912, was that the organizers didn’t resources to squeeze the monument to Shevchenko out of it. hadenough nationalists because Russian them, particularly to wasclosed Kiev space of sacred sametoken, By go the there. to expectpeasants wouldn’t because they punishment, line with a virtue of GreatKobzar. of virtue line with the a stolitniogo yuvileyu.MA thesis, manuscript. 2009 142 141 saunas and in a Karavaev in front of corner inacramped nation son of best Ukrainian tothe monument of students had sent a claimed Chykalenko protest letter to the Associate Committee, in which they wrote: “A Cited in: Juriy Chepela. Dyskusiyi navkolo monumenta Tarasovi Shevchenku v Kyyevi naperedodni yoho naperedodni vKyyevi Shevchenku Tarasovi monumenta navkolo Dyskusiyi Chepela. Juriy in: Cited Evhen Chykalenko, “Diary”,V. 1., (Kyiv: Tempora, 2004). p. 247 So, the commercial downtown areas were viewed by Ukrainian nationalists as a as nationalists Ukrainian by viewed were areas downtown commercial the So, There were four competitions for the artistic design of the monument to Taras of Intelligentsia a Member as and aPeasant as Shevchenko 5.6. Sheepcoat: A Frockvs close vicinity totheoffice ofclose vicinity ‘Kievlianin’ 141 . Yet, these issuesexhaustall did thepoints not of criticism. A group ” 142 76 [emphasis – O.M.] doesn’t fall in a CEU eTD Collection 143 simple folk.instead Rusov said that of on a shepherd pedestal the should beplaced apoet graduate of Art Academy and University of St. Vladimir, and not really a representativeOlexandrSiortinofailed Rusovcomplained thatunderstand to Shevchenko that was a of a look. attractive and decent a have didn’t peasant a as Shevchenko for criticized was hethat had sensemanaged spirit to the of Ukrainian peasantry. However, hisfinal project avoyagewinChernigivabout to in guberniagrand-prix. to Heundertook 1912and claimed peasant. Italian sculptor Antonio part in Siortinotook competitions andin three 1914 was clothes. But almost all European artists failed to present a decent image of Shevchenko as a beard” dressed holding infrock, wearing a or walking with stick, handlebars top-hat, and aFrench him.about “A half-intelligent– abutler, aretired petty officer, adandy with English hairdo, Ukrainian intrinsically nothing was there that so European, neat be an ordinary to appeared and“intelligent” style.in “bourgeois” his Naturally, werecriticizedfor Shevchenko they Ukrainianthe peasant. he embodied pictures other the on while artist, noble high-class Intelligentsia, of member as Shevchenko appeared firsttypepictures So,onthehat. of and sheepskin sheepskin coat in a Shevchenko presented half another hairdo, neat a with and a hat without frock a in him depicted them of half pictures: in these settled controversy basic a was There Shevchenko. Evhen Chykalenko,“Diary”, V. 1., (Kyiv: Tempora,2004). p. 167 143 In the consequent competitionsdepict tended In theconsequentShevchenkoin more artists to peasant Shevchenko first on the competition depicted The majority presented of sketches the of and portraits painted afewphoto weresupplied only with Competitors – characterized this –type Yevhen Chykalenko. 77 CEU eTD Collection stolitniogo yuvileyu.MA thesis, manuscript. 2009 146 145 stolitniogo yuvileyu.MA thesis, manuscript. 2009 144 andartist. an a conical hill symbolizing “ symbolizing hill a conical placed him on place Sherwood on who wantedtounpolishedthe rock, the poet artists, other was simplicity an of ensemble historicalof figures beneath figurethe of UnlikeShevchenko. only to August Rodin, wasaddressed (such artist a request European byanyprominentredesigning sketch the of whose answer was negative).requestsuperior,was not and possibility work to the contemplated Committee Associate The strong part jury’s the to his according valueof would it remake author Theartistic the that instructions. of Sherwood’s work jury,didn’tsatisfy members of the any of under condition his designwas the accepted and strong political of aspect his Hebecame works. less 1914 radical though. towards lunch with good booze stretching on a sofa with a cigar.” that oppresses” that Havrylko’sto idea, against this “protest composition should havesymbolized a everything a girl in ahetman. cossack’sand embraceAccording atorchlight, agirl cossacks, with two ensemble his heroes of of poems. the warriorsThis with included ensemble two swords, the Havrylko, who took part in every competition. His idea was to pose Shevchenko above an “archaic madejury, Havrylkohis about publish opinion itshe claimed members that in are stuck Cited in: Juriy Chepela. Dyskusiyi navkolo monumenta Tarasovi Shevchenku v Kyyevi naperedodni yoho naperedodni vKyyevi Shevchenku Tarasovi monumenta navkolo Dyskusiyi Chepela. Juriy in: Cited Evhen Chykalenko, “Diary”,V. 1., (Kyiv: Tempora, 2004). p. 327 yoho naperedodni v Kyyevi Shevchenku Tarasovi monumenta navkolo Dyskusiyi Chepela. Juriy The finalist of the fourth competition was Leonid Sherwood. His work, in fact, in work, His Sherwood. Leonid was competition fourth the of finalist The One of the most successful designs was presented by a local artist Mykhaylo kulturnitstvo 144 146 Chykalenko was even more radical about Siortino’s after a about more“a poet radical waseven Chykalenko image: . revolutionary. asanovertly Apparently,was rejected his This project ” which ” which asa praised Shevchenko romantic andignored “love” poet a mohyla ”. On the foot of figures hill many of wereplaced there this foot the ”. On 78 145 CEU eTD Collection something in between. something be to failed just he imagination, in their Shevchenko could neither barrier, this transpass peasantry. on couldn’t They directed wasultimately activity their intelligentsia, of members werepredominantly be Whileactivists easilyreconciled. not Ukrainian which could wholegenius. Ukrainian world Yet,avatars betweenof fluctuated the two Shevchenko they the to show would that masterpiece a become would Shevchenko to monument the that have an anti-Romanov and even social-revolutionary message. Ukrainian activists dreamed praisedhim asalocal manofoutstanding personality, gradually his they found to works initially nationalists Russian While them. between discord of bone a became Shevchenko nationalists.forged figureRussian Ukrainian The of and agenda political the of Taras its cultural andsimultaneously andnew meaningswhich symbols acquired reflected poets, its writers Ukraine/Malorussia, of history The heritage. cultural their of interpretation the Shevchenko. of magnificence whole the reveal not did and value artistic lacked design the hand, other the On peasant. as both work On it and hand,advantage one would disadvantage. be easilyperceivedby a his of simplicity the found Committee the that is significant It poetry. Shevchenko’s from To conclude, Russian nationalistsandwent Ukrainian a longthrough debateabout 79 CEU eTD Collection backward economics and police regime. and police economics backward maintain nationalists only ofreaction Russianwas to the existing whose purpose asagents TUP group. portrayed very conservative and a reactionary KKRNasadeeply the depict compromise with any force.revolutionary contrary, On the Ukrainian nationalists to tried sang secondthe partin of chorus the movement liberationistthe and any wereeager to split the Russian Empire as theoneintended to movement Ukrainian KKRN represented between debate groups. andthe Russian nation into parts. themselves liberal-democrats. hadregarded This division hugeas for asignificance the They tried to show camp” and that “liberationist the right-wing.to The TUP belongedmoderately and conservative the TUP KKRN belonged “patriotic tothe andidentified camp” their stance asnationalist, political belonged political to opposite campswhich formed during Revolutionwere the 1905. Theof mass support. receive managed by noneof to inthem 1914 sympathy the Southwest, population the of the win to tried groups both Although struggle. the and rivalry the shows clearly editions printed their of pages the on two the between place took which debate The movements. periodthe between 1908 and1914 cannot be comprehended separately, asnon-related The Kiev Club of Russian Nationalists and the Society of Ukrainian Progressives Ukrainian of Society the and Nationalists Russian of Club Kiev The in in Kiev nationalisms Russian and Ukrainian of history the that doubt little is There Conclusion 80 CEU eTD Collection question is very important and the future of KKRN and of future dependsonit.Russian important the regarded isvery question Empire national the that show to tried They nationalism. Russian into provinces central from public Russian convert to tried KKRN level imperial the On insider. and regional imperial, – centers. campaigned vehemently in Jewish against domination culture commerceurban of and in whileundertakings (“Prosvita”,Cooperative this direction movement), their newspaper peasantry. Thisa to certain extent shaped their strategies. Ukrainian nationalists bymeans of against Jewsthe form and bourgeoisa Russian class, nationalists Ukrainian focused on the this hampered national movement. While for KKRN the solution of the question was to fight that acknowledged of Jewish.Both them is isand predominantly society thin Southwestern shaky. emergedthere numerous factions within and each the politicalgroup, balance was more than shows that TUP the and KKRN the of case The inright. the on theultra-nationalists to left the on processdemocrats of social- from theranging – views political various interaction of people with groups political miscellaneous between them beginningthe of World War IKKRNallied liberals. with As for TUP,andinitially it united with other political KKRNof which a number comprised statements of beregarded asliberal,could after and actors agenda Thepolitical representatives. their of convictions earnest reflected than rather other The strategies which both The strategiesdeployed begroups both can which levels examined on differentthree Both groups were concerned with the fact that the bourgeois class of the of bourgeois class the that fact the with wereconcerned Both groups each against in struggle weredeployed the stances political opposite these In fact, Rada appealed to the peasantry and made a number of important made peasantry the and anumberof appealed to 81 Kievlianin CEU eTD Collection publicity inpublicity in the press.breakups of between Theconflicts themcaused the work the huge history,Malorussian literature and University inthe ethnography St. Vladimirof had large of scholars between split The institutions. in same the affiliated were and very well other people. Malorussian of product Polish intrigue, intends which to impose artificial institutions and practices on the a was movement national Ukrainian the that claimed They people. Russian and Empire the preserve aunity of need contrary, theto the KKRN,on emphasized state. an autonomous alleviate themselves from the mores of Empire and become politically conscious citizens of of Russianthe Empire wasits centralism bureaucracy.of and domination hadto Ukrainians problems of show nationalists existingthe Ukrainian regime. endeavored to problem the that it. Malorussiansfrom wouldburden realizeRussian domination the of themselvesreveal and day one that meant which unconsciousness, of state a was it them For Ukrainians. longlasting MalorussiannessRussian domination wasregardedasasymptom the of over They Ukrainianbelieved that in nature brooded souls the of Russifiedthe Ukrainians. aseparate nation,historically languageconstituted its their that ownexistence.to hadaright noticeimperial in the They hardcenters. prove worked to Ukrainiansthat culturally and version Russianness, butof was intrinsic Russianness. also Ukrainians wanted tocome into same theydidn’ttime deny Malorussiannessfor which them onlytheir aregional not was the At force. patriotic most the and nationalists Russian devoted most the as themselves Although KKRN and TUP somewere rival groups, knew of members theireach On the regional level both groups appealed to local populations and discussed deep 82 CEU eTD Collection intelligent, which intelligent, benot could easily reconciled. and peasant of avatars genius.Yet,Shevchenko, Ukrainian two between the fluctuated they whole world the would show that masterpiece become a would Shevchenko to monument the that dreamed activists Ukrainian message. social-revolutionary even and Romanov local a as him man praised initially nationalists Russian While discord. of bone of a became Shevchenko outstanding nationalists.forged figureRussian Ukrainian The of and agenda political the of Taras personality, its poets, and cultural newsymbolssimultaneously which acquired reflected meanings they heritage. interpretation of history theircultural and its writers The Ukraine/Malorussia, of gradually found his works Chernihiv. to havein Congress Archeological XIV the an during split is the this of example anti- A peculiar University. Russian and Ukrainian nationalists went through a long debate about the about debate long a through went nationalists Ukrainian and Russian 83 CEU eTD Collection City Administrative board of City Council Marshal of Nobility Council State ( Parliament State in Tableand of Local KKRN State Authorities Representation 2. Senior ranks Clergy officials Court Bureaucrats Military servicemen Merchants Teachers Professors and Liberal professions Railway employees Landowners owners House Total number of members Table 1. Social representation of KCRN Appendix Duma ) 6 2 9 3 1 1910 46 6 25 26 36 51 41 45 102 53 183 507 1910 84 8% 1% 5% 5% 6% 10% 50 7% 8% 25% 156 9% 33% 154 4 14 2 2 1911 9 36 12 18 32 31 43 57 51 660 1911 5% 2% 2% 4% 4% 6% 8% 7% 7% 23% 23% 11 14 5 4 1913 11 43 16 21 27 34 33 43 47 46 174 141 738 1913 5% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 5% 6% 6% 23% 19% CEU eTD Collection 13. 12. 11. 15. 14. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Primary Sources Bibliography separatizm ______. Florinskiy, Timofey.“Pamiati N.P. Dashkevicha.” Prague, 1934 Doroshenko, Dmytro. Karbasnikov, 1909. Hrushevskyi, Mykhaylo. St. Vladimira,Universitet 1906. ______. Dmovskii, Roman. Dmovskii, ______. korennago naseleniiaegoevreistvu razrusheniiu i koslableniiu napravlennykh planov iprogramm, tainykh evreiskikh Ya.Demchenko, 1913. Delo Beilisa:Stenograficheskii otchet. 2008. Tempora, YevhenChykalenko, andPetroStebnytskyi. 1907. ______. Rozmovamovu.Kyiv: pro ‘Prosveshchenie’, Tovarystvo ______. Chykalenko, Yevhen. Chykalenko, Budilovich, A.S. “XIV Vserossiyskiy sjezd v sjezd Chernigove.” “XIV Vserossiyskiy . St. Petersburg: A.S. Suvorin, 1900. Pravda obukrainofil’stve O edinstve russkogo naroda Evreiskoe ravnopravie iliRusskoeporaboshchenie? Izsledovanie Germaniia, Rossiia i pol’skii voprosGermaniia, Rossiia ipol’skii Slavianofil’stvo T.G. Shevchenka Shchodennyk Spohady (1861-1907) Yevhen Chykalenko. YogoRzyttia igromads’ka diyal’nist’. Malorusskii iazyk i“Ukrains’ko-Rus’kyi” literaturnyi Natsionalnyi vopros Iavtonomiya. . Kiev:Kushnerev, 1907. . (2 vols.) Kyiv: Tempora, 2007. 85 (3 vols.) Kiev: Pechatnia S.P. Iakovleva, Kievlianin. . Kiev:I.N. Kushnerev, 1906. . . St. Petersburg: V.D. Smirnov, 1907. Kyiv: 2003. Tempora, Kievlianin. Lystuvannia 4, 1908. August . Kiev: Imperatorskii St.1907. Petersburg, . St. Petersburg:. St. N.P. February 6, 1908. 1901-1922. Kyiv: 1901-1922. CEU eTD Collection 37. 36. 35. 33. 32. 34. 31. 30. 29. 28. 26. 27. 25. 24. 23. 22. 21. 20. 19. 18. 17. 16. ______. ”Zametki.”in ______. “Zametki.” ______. “Zametki.” Taras Shevchenko vepistoliariyi viddilurukopysiv. professor______. “Otvet Lobode.” Savenko, Anatoliy. “Zametki.” Anatoliy. Savenko, Sviatogo Vladimira.” Sviatogo Russkiy,“Novaya istoriyi russkoy schema prepodavaniya literatury v Universitete Pravye partii:Dokumenty imaterialy Kushnerev, 1889. Dmitriy. Pikhno, O-ko. “Naukovyi metod ukrayinozherstva.” 1910. Ivan. Nechuy-Levytskyi, Nedolia,“Malorosy, Pavlo. i soyuznyky svidomist’.”natsional’na Shevchenko.” I “Natsionalisty “Natsionalisty I separatyzm.” VospominaniyaMiliukov, Petr. New (1859-1917). York, 1955. Mandryk, M. “Kooperatsiya bez ideyi.” Kievlianin. Loboda, G.A. “Ponovoy povodu skhemy prepodavaniyaliteratury.” malorossiyskoy “Kooperatyvnyi rukh na seli.” Holtzhausen, 1917. ______. Yakoyi avtonomiyi i federatsiyi hoche Ukrayina. Vienna:Adolf pol’za, 1907. ______. ______. ”Nashi trebovaniya.” In ______. “O zrelosti I nezrelosti.” In June 1,1908. O svobode mezhdunarodnoi torgovliiprotektsionizme Edinstvo iliraspadenie Rossii? Kievlianin. Kryve dzerkalo ukrayins’koyi movy. Kryve dzerkaloukrayins’koyi Kievlianin, Kievlianin, Rada Rada Rada Kievlianin, Kievlianin May 29, 1908. . February 16, 1914. , 1910. April 29, . January 15, 1914 . (2 vols.) Moscow: Rosspen, 1998 86 Kievlianin. Rada May 15, 1908 Oct18, 1908 , March3,1909 Ukrainskiy vestnik. June 7,1908 Rada. , January , January 15, 1910. Ukrainskiy vestnik. Ukrainskiy June 14,1908. St. Petersburg:St. Obshchestvennaya Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1966. February 15, 1913. Kyiv: Chokolov, 1912. V.5.1906. V.4. 1906. Rada. . Kiev: I.N. May21, CEU eTD Collection 52. 51. 55. 54. 53. 40. 39. 41. 50. 49. 48. 46. 38. 47. 45. 44. 43. 42. ______. Sablin, 1912. A.A. Sidorov, Stebnytskyi, Petro. russkih natsionalistov, 1913. klube russkih 1913 goda. nazionalistov vKieve7fevralia Sikorsky, Ivan. 1903. ______. 1908. ______. “Zamietki.”in ______. “Zametki.”in ______. “Zamietki.”in ______. Vitaliy. Shulgin, 1912. ______. ”Kryveukrayinskoy movy.” dzerkalo Tipografiya Kushnereva, 1914. separatizma S.N. Shchegolev, 1913. ______. “Zametki.”in ______. Sbornik kluba russkih natsionalistov. Sbornik kluba russkih natsionalistov. Vol.3. 1910. Sbornik kluba russkihnatsionalistov. 1909. Sbornik kluba russkihnatsionalistov. . Kiev: I.N. Kushnerev, 1912. Russkieetnologicheskogo Iukraincy.(Glavaiz katehizisa):v doklad Inorodcheskii vopros i ideiafederalizma v Rossii Ukrainstvuyushchie imy. Dni, gody Sovremennoe ukrainstvo. Ego proishozhdenie, rost i zadachi. rosti Egoproishozhdenie, Sovremennoe ukrainstvo. Pol’skaia avtonomiiaislavianskaia ideia Pol’skoe vozstanie 1863goda Vybrani tvory. Ukrainskoe dvizhenie kak sovremennyi etap yurznorusskogo kaksovremennyi dvizhenie Ukrainskoe . 1920.Moscow, 1990. Kievlianin Kievlianin Kievlianin Kievlianin Kyiv, Tempora:2009. 87 Vol.2. Kiev: Tipografiya Kushnerova i K°, Kushnerova Tipografiya Kiev: Vol.2. V. 4-5. Vol.1. Kiev: Tipografiya Kushnerova i K°, Kushnerova Tipografiya Kiev: Vol.1. Beograd:Rybinsky, 1939. , July 24, 1908 , April 1908 26, , 16.04.1908 , 14.04.1909 Kiev: Tipografiya Kul’zgenko,1911. Kiev: Tipografiya Kushnereva i K°, Kushnereva Tipografiya Kiev: . St. Petersburg: N.P. Karbasnikov, Kievlianin . Kiev: I.I. Chokolov, I.I. Kiev: . Kiev: Kievskiy klub Kievskiy Kiev: . Moscow: V.M. . October 10, . October Kiev: CEU eTD Collection 1. 64. 4. 3. 2. 63. 62. 59. 61. 60. 58. 57. 56. Anderson, Benedict. Anderson, Sources Secondary ______. “Z nashoho rzyttia” in 2004. Brubaker, Rogers. Institute of Ukrainian Press,Studies 2003. Kohut,Sysyn, Frank E. and182-214. von Mark Hagen, Edmonton: Canadian Ukrainian-Russian Encounter,1600-1945, ‘Little 1782-1917,”In RussianSolution’, and______. “The Failure Russian-UkrainianDiscourse of The The Russia, 1904-12 Andriewsky, Olga. of Nationalism. ______. “Ukrayins’ke zhyttia u1913rotsi.” Kobza, 1993. ______. Tkach, “Pid Vas’ko. podviynoyuopekoyu.” Kul’zhenko, 1912. Yefremov, Serhiy. “Blagorodnyi osvedomitel’.” vopros. Ukrainskiy Storozhenko, A.V. Tempora, 2009. ______. “Bytyi shliakh.” In Petro Stebnytskyi,______. “Bytyi shliakh.” Petro In tvory. ______. “Ukraina vekonomike In Rossii.” Stebnytskyi,Petro Kyiv: 2009. Tempora, . Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1991. London: Verso, 1983. Za rik 1912-y. Pid obukhom. Bil’shovyky vKyyevi. Bil’shovyky Za rik1912-y.Pidobukhom. Saint-Petersburg, 1914. Saint-Petersburg, Ethnicity without Groups. The Politics National Identity:of TheUkrainian Question in Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin andSpread Proiskhozhdenie isushchnost’ukrainofil’stva 88 Rada Rada edited by Andreas Kappeler, Zenon E. byAndreasKappeler,Zenon edited , 29June, 1913 Cambridge: Harvard University Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, Culture, Nation, and Identity: The Culture, Nation,andIdentity: Ukrainskaya zhizn’. . May 1910. 5, Rada . January 1, 1914. Vybrani tvory. 2 (1913) . Kiev:S.V. Kyiv: Oriy Vybrani Kiev: CEU eTD Collection 19. 18. 17. 16. 15. 14. 12. 13. 5. 11. 8. 7. 6. 9. 10. Press, 1985. Smaller European Nations ComparativePatriotic AnalysisCompositionof Groups oftheSocial amongthe Hroch Cambridge University 1983. Press, Hobsbawm, Eric and Terence Ranger. Terence and Eric Hobsbawm, 2009. 1863-1907. Violence inKiev, Hillis, Faith 1986. Research Institute, C. Herlihy, Patricia. University Press, 1986. Hamm, Michael F., ed. Municipal Reform.” ______. “Khar’kov’s A inDuma, 1910-1914: Progressive Study Russian Press, 1993. Habermas, Jürgen.Habermas, Hamm, Michael F. Michael Hamm, bourgeoisinto acategoryof society. naperedodni yohostolitniogo yuvileyu Chepela, Juriy. Gellner, Ernest. New Jersey: University Rutgers Press, 1980. Dolbilov, M. and A. Miller, eds. Empire’s Northwestern Region in the 1860s.” Dolbilov,“Russification Mikhail. and the Bureaucratic Mindin Russian the XX veka)”. Dmitriev, Alexander. “Ukrainskaya nauka i ee imperskie konteksty (XIX-nachalo Donik, Oleksandr. 2006. obozrenie, literaturnoe Novoe Edelman, Robert. Edelman, Istorii Ukraini, 2004 , Miroslav. Ab Imperio,#4,2007. Nations and Nationalism. Dyskusiyi navkolo monumenta Tarasovi Shevchenku v Kyyevi v Shevchenku Tarasovi monumenta Dyskusiyi navkolo Between EmpireandNation: Urban Politics, Community,and Gentry Politics on theEveof Russian Revolution. Odessa: AHistory,1794-1914 Rodyna Tereshchenkiv v istorii dobrochynnosti The structural transformation ofthepublicsphere :an inquiry Slavic Review Kiev: APortrait, 1800-1917. Social PreconditionsNational RevivalinEurope: of A The City in Late Imperial Russia. Imperial City inLate The . trans. Ben Fowkes. New Fowkes. York: Ben trans. . CambridgeUniversity UnpublishedD. Dissertation, Ph. University, Yale 40.1 (1981): 17-36.40.1 (1981): Zapadnye okrainy rossiiskoi imperii Cambridge (Mass.):MIT Press, 1993. 89 . MA thesis, manuscript. 2009 Ithaca: Cornell University 1983. Press, The Invention ofTradition. Kritika . Cambridge: HarvardUkrainian Princeton: Princeton University 5.2 (Spring245-271; 2004): Bloomington: Indiana Bloomington: New Brunswick, . Kyiv: Instytut . Moscow: New York: CEU eTD Collection 34. 35. 33. 32. 31. 30. 29. 28. 27. 26. 25. 24. 23. 22. 21. 20. Velikikh reform. A.A. Komzolova, gibel’ ideologiiVserosiyskogo natsionalnogo soyuza. Kotsiubinskiy, Daniil. istoriyi istoriyi In (1620-1860).” Kogut, Zenon.“Istoki yedinstva: paradigm Isozdanie Ukraina natsional’noy russkoy Politics, 1848-1948 Jeremy. King, ukrainskikh natsionalistov po‘ukrainskomu voprosu’. “ Tatiana. Khripachenko, Ukraina moderna Turn inKyivthe Century.” “Jewish Life of Victoria. Khiterer, at Twentieth the ______. ______. Vitalii. Kovalinskii, politychnii portret Heorhii. Kas’’ianov, Edmonton: Canadian of Institute Press,Ukrainian 2003. Studies Ukrainian-Russian The Culture, Nation,andIdentity: Encounter(1600-1945) eds. Hagen, von Mark and Sysyn, E. Frank Kohut, E. Zenon Andreas, Kappeler, 39 (2003). Perspective.” inHistorical andPerceptions Relations Kappeler,Andreas. “’Great Russians’ and ‘Little Russians’: Russian-Ukrainian (Accessed 15.05.2009) meditsyny.”doctor http://www.rusinst.ru/articletext.asp?rzd=1&id=997&abc=1 publitsyst, natsionalisma, teoretik Uchenyi-psiholog, Sikorsky. “Ivan T. Kal’chenko, XIX-XX stolittia. ______. HRYTSAK%20Yaroslav.htm http://www.franko.lviv.ua/Subdivisions/um/um2-953/ProblemyIstoriohrafiji/2-______. Ukrayins’ka revoliutsiya, 1914-1923: novi interpretatsiyi. XIX-XX stolittia Hrytsak, Yaroslav. Budweisers Into Czechs and Germans: A LocalHistory IntoCzechsandGermans: Budweisers ofBohemian . Kyiv: Heneza, 2000. Moscow: Nauka,2005. Kyiv: Heneza, 2000. . Kyiv: Lybid’, 1993. 10 (2006). . Princeton: Princeton University 2005. Press, Narys istoriiUkrainy:formuvannia modernoi natsii ukrains’koi Narys istorii Ukrainy: formuvannia modernoi Narys ukrains’koi istoriiUkrainy:formuvannia natsii Kyivs’ki miniatiury: Bank na Instytuts’kii Politika samoderzhaviiavSevero-Zapadnom kraevepokhu Metsenaty Kieva Metsenaty Sem’ia Tereshchenko Ukrains’ka intelligentsiia narubezhi stolit: XIX-XX Sotsial’no- Russkiy natsionalizm v nachale XX stoletiya: RozhdenieI XX natsionalizmvnachale Russkiy Ab imperio. ‘Avtonomiya’ i ‘feredatsiya’ v debatakh liberalov I ‘feredatsiya’ vdebatakhliberalov i ‘Avtonomiya’ 90 4/2000 . Kiev: Kyi, 1998. . Kiev: Presa Ukraini, 2003. Moskva: ROSSPEN,2001. ” Manuscript. Donald W. TreadgoldPapers Donald . Kyiv: Kupola, 2006. . CEU eTD Collection 46. 45. 48. 47. 44. 43. 42. 41. 39. 40. 38. 37. 36. Nathans, Benjamin. obozrenie: literaturnoe Novoe 2008. Moscow, Marina. Mogil’ner, Kiev: NIURO, 2000. ______. Kiev: MAUP,2007. Omel’yanchuk, Igor. Russia. the NineteenthCentury. ______. Historical Research. Alexei. Miller, Reprintsev V.F., Floria B.N. Moscow: Shkola “Yazyki russkoy kultury”, 1997 In voiny.” mirovoi ______. “Ukrainskiy i vopros russkie politicheskie nakanunepartii pervoy InstitutMoscow: Slavianovedeniya2003. RAN, Irina. Mikhutina, Era. ______. Associational Life.” Meir, Natan M. “Jews, and Russians inKiev: relations Intergroup in Late Impeial Mass-Circulation Press. Louise. McReynolds, 2009, 575-596. European European system of ethnic identity narratives” acommon 1820-1945: race psychology “Anthropological McMahon, Richard. Peterburzhskogouniversiteta, gosudarstvennogo 2004,70-79 k sovremennosti), politicheskie tsennosti vsoznaniiobshchestvennom konservatizma Rossii(ot istokov In poliatiya).” ispol’zovaniya problem (k vremeni ______. “Konservatizm v kontekste politicheskoy istorii Novogo Ithaca: Cornell University 2003. Press, Berkeley: University of 2004. California Press, The RomanovEmpire Essays andNationalism: intheMethodologyof The Ukrainian Question: TheRussian EmpireandNationalism in Chernosotennoe edited by Yu.Solonin. N. St.Petersburg: Izdatel’stvoSankt- Ukrainskii vopros v Rossii (konets XIX-nachalo XX veka). XX voprosvRossii(konetsXIX-nachalo Ukrainskii BeyondthePale: TheJewish Encounterwith LateImperial New York: Central European University Press, 2008. Slavic Review Rossiya-Ukraina: istoriya vzaimootnosheni, Rossiya-Ukraina: istoriya Chernosotennoe dvirzenie vRossiyskoy imperii(1901-1914). The News Under Russia's Regime:The Old Development ofa Russia At Play:Leisure of Activities attheEnd TheTsarist Homo imperii: Istoriiafizicheskoi antropologii vRossii. New York:Central European University 2003. Press, Princeton, N.J. Princeton,: Princeton N.J. University 1991. Press, 65,3(Autumn, 475-501 2006): dvizhenie dvizhenie na territorii Ukrainy(1904-1914 gg.) 91 . Nations . and Nationalism Filosofiya Isotsial’no- ed. Miller A.I., , #15(4) . CEU eTD Collection 60. 59. 51. 50. 49. 55. 54. 58. 57. 56. 53. 52. 257-276. von Edmonton: CanadianHagen, 182-214. of Institute Ukrainian Press,Studies 2003 1600-1945, In Peasantries.” “Conceptual ChristineWorobec, the Russian andobservations on D.Ukrainian University Press, 1996. ontheWesternRussification Frontier,1863-1914. R. Weeks, Theodore Carl. Schorske, Accessed 19November, 2009. http://abimperio.net/cgi-bin/aishow.pl?state=showa&idart=343&idlang=2&Code= Lastthe Years RussianEmpire, 1905-1917. of 2001. the Ab#3, Imperio, ______.“True-Russians” Jews:the against Right-Wing Anti-Semitismin Accessed 19November, 2009. http://abimperio.net/cgi-bin/aishow.pl?state=showa&idart=801&idlang=2&Code= Podbolotov, Sergei. Staliunas, Daedalus Shporliuk, Periphery Roman. “Ukraine:FromanImperial aSovereign to State.” period” Vulpius,“Ukrainskiy yazyk obuchenie Ricarda. vpozdneimperskiy Ishkolnoe Dumka, 2004. perspektyvi Olexiy.Tolochko, “Dovha istoriya Ukrayiny.” In and BarbaraDash. Choldin andMauriceFriedberg ;Russian portionstranslated byMaurice Friedberg The red pencil : artists, scholars, and Lithuania and Belarus aftercensors in the USSR, Valentyna. Shandra, 483-505. Coalition.” Electoral –Jewish Ukrainian 1907 The Alliance: Unlikely “An Yohanan. Petrovsky-Shtern and Joshua, Shanes, Books, 1981. . Ab Imperio 126, #3 (1997): 85-119 126, Darius. , ed. V.M. Lytvyn,I.M. Dziuba, Ya. D. Isayevych. Vol.1. Kyiv: Naukova edited by Andreas Kappeler, Zenon E. Kohut, Frank E. Sysyn, and Mark Culture, Nation, and Identity: TheUkrainian-RussianCulture, Nation,andIdentity: Encounter, Fin-de-Siècle Vienna: PoliticsandCulture. Making Russians: Meaning and Practice of Russification in MeaningandPracticeofRussification MakingRussians: Boston : Unwin Hyman, c1989. , #2, 2005. Kyivs’ke general-gubernatorstvo, 1832-1914 Kyivs’ke general-gubernatorstvo, Nikolay II kakrusskiy natsionalist. Nation andStatein Late Imperial Russia: Nationalismand 1863.New York: Rodopi, 2007. 92 Nations andNationalism15(3) (2009), Ukrayina IRosiyavistorychniy DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois Northern IL: DeKalb, 2003. #3, Ab Imperio, editedbyMariannaTax New York: Vintage . Kyiv, 1999. CEU eTD Collection 61. 62. Olsztyn: Wy Yekelchyk, Serhiy. Zienkiewicz, University Press, 2007. Ī Tadeusz. sza szko Ukraine: Birth of a Modern NationUkraine: Birthof á a pedagogiczna w Olsztynie, 1990. Polskie Ī ycie ycie literackie wKijowie latach 1905-1918. 93 . New York: Oxford . NewYork: