#280 The Question of Russo-Ukrainian Unity and Ukrainian Distinctiveness in Early Modem Ukrainian Thought and Culture Zenon E. Kohut
Zenon E. Kohut is the author of numerous works on Early-Modern Ukraine, historiogra phy, and the development of Ukrainian identity, including Russian Centralism and Ukrainian Autonomy: Imperial Absorption ofthe Hetmanate (English version, 1988; revised Ukrainian version, 1996). He has taught at the "University of Pennsylvania and Michigan State Univer sity and was a long-time associate of the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. Currently he is the director of the Canadian Ir.stitute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Alberta. The Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
The Kennan Institute fer Advanced Russian Studies is a division of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Schola:s. Through its programs of residential scholarships, meet ings, and publications, the Institute encourages scholarship on the former Soviet Union, embracing a broad range of fields in the social sciences and humanities. The Kennan Insti tute is supported by contributions from foundations, corporations, individuals, and the United States Goverrunent.
Kennan Institute Occasional Papers
The Kennan Institute makes Occasional Papers available to all those interested . Occa sional Papers are submitted by Kennan Institute scholars and visiting speakers. Copies of Occasional Papers ar_d a list of papers currently available can be ob~ained free of charge by contacting:
Occasional Papers Kennan Institute One Woodrow Wilson Plaza 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004-3027 (202) 691-4100
This Occasional Paper has been produced with support provided by the Russian, Eurasian, and East European Research and Training Program of the U.S. Department of State (funded by the Soviet and East European Research and Training Act of 1983, or Title VIII). We are most grateful to this sponsor.
The views expressed in Kennan Institute Occasional Papers are those of the authors.
© March 2001 Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The Kennan Institute Named in honor of Ambassador Kennan's relative, George Kennan "the Elder," a nineteenth century explorer of Russia and Siberia, the Kennan Institu:e is commited to improving American expertise and knowledge about the former Soviet Union. It is one of several area studies programs at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars The Center is the nation's living memorial to Woodrow Wilson, president of the United States from 1913 to 1921. Created by law in 1968, the Center is Washington, D.C.'s only independent, wide-ranging institute fo r advanced study where vital current issues and their deep historical background are explored through research and dialogue. Visit the Center on the WorldWide Web at http:/ /www.wilsoncenter.org.
Director Lee H. HamLton Bo11rd ofTn~stees Joseph A. Cari, Jr., C'lair ·Steven Alan Bennett, Vice Chair Ex o/ficio trustees: Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State · James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress· John W. Carlin, Archivist of the United States· William R. Ferris, Chair, National Endowment for the Humanities· Lawrence M. Small, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution · Roderick R. Paige, Secretary of Education · Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services · Pn'vate citizen trustees: Carol Cartwright · John H. Foster · Jean L. Hennessey · Daniel L. Lamaute · Doris 0. Matsui · Thomas R. Reedy · Nancy M. Zirkin
17te Wilson Council B.i3. Andersen · Cyrus A. Ansary · Charles F. Barber · Laurence E. Bathgate II · Joseph C. Bell · Thomas J. Buckholtz · Conrad Cafritz ·Nicola L. Caiola· Raoul L. Carroll· Scott Carter· Albert V. Casey· Peter B. Clark· William T. Coleman, Jr. · Michael D. DiGiacomo· Donald G. Drapkin ·F. Samuel Eberts Ill· I. Steven Edelson · J. David 3ller · Sim Farar · Susan Farber· Barbara Hackman Franklin · Morton Funger · Chris G. Gardiner · Eric Garfinkel · Bruce S. Gelb · Jerry P. Genova · Alma Gildenhom · Joseph B. Gildenhom David F. Girard--diCarlo · Michael B. Goldberg· William E. Grayson · Raymond A. Guenter · Vema R. Harrah· Carla A Hills· Eric Hotung ·Frances Humphrey Howard· Jchn L. Howard · Darrell E. Issa ·Jerry Jasinowski · Brenda LaGrange Johnson · Dennis D. Jocgensen · Shelly Kamins · Anastasia D. Kelly · Christopher J. Kennan · Michael V. Kostiw · Steven Kotler · William H. Kreme!' · Harold 0. Levy · David Link · DavidS. Mandel· John P. Manning· Edwin S. Marks · Robert McCarthy· C. Peter McColough ·Stephen G. McConahey ·James D. McDonald· J. Kenneth Menges · Philip Merrill· Jeremiah L. Mwphy ·Martha T. Muse· Della M. Newman· Gerald L. Parsky ·Michael]. Polenske · DonaldRobertQuartel, Jr. ·]. Steven Rhodes· John L. Richardson · Margaret Milner Richardson· Edwin Robbins · Philip E. Rollhaus, Jr. · Otto Ruesch· B. Francis Saul, III · J. Michael Shepherd · George P. Shultz· Raja W. Sidawi ·Deborah Siebert · Thomas L. Siebert · Ron Silver· William A Slaughte::- ·Timothy E. Stapleford · Mark C. Treanor· Christine M. Warnke· Pete Wilson· Deborah Wince-Smith · Herbert S. Winokur, ;r. · Joseph Zappala
Kl!lllllln Institute Advisol'!f Council Chair, Herbert J. Ellison, \JIT.versity of Washington· Timothy J. Colton, Harvacd University · Catharine S. Nepornnyashchy, Barnard College and Columbia University · Oleksandr Pavliuk, EastWest Institute · Elizabeth Pond, Bonn, Germany · Linda Randall, University of Rhode Island · Jane Sharp, University of Maryland, College Park · Ambassador Thorr,as W. Simons, Jr., Stanford University · Grace Kennan Warnecke, Winrock International, Chief of Party, Kyiv ·Larissa G. Zakharova, Moscow State University THE QUESTION OF RUSSO-UKRAINIAN UNITY AND UKRAINIAN DISTINCTIVENESS IN EARLY MODERN UKRAINIAN THOUGHT AND CULTURE
Introduction areas did they seek links with Russia Many present-day Russians stiJ and in which ones did they hold on to consider Ukraine to be part of Russia, what they considered essential differ historically, culturally, and even spiri ences? In order to get to the root of these questions, it is necessary to at tually. So pervasive has been the myth of Russo-Ukrainian unity that any least touch upon the Ukrainian out look prior to the encounter with attempt at asserting a Ukrainian Russia. identity has been viewed by many Russians as betrayal or as foreign The Polish-Lithuanian Experience intrigue. Despite the persecution of When in 1654 Hetman Bohcan Ukrainian culture in both Imperial Khmel'nyts'kyi placed Ukraine under Russia and the Soviet Union, Ukrai:U the protection of the Muscov:.te tsar, ans have developed the idea of a the country had experienced more distinct Ukrainian nationhood. Many than half a century of political, reli of the current misunderstandings gious, cultural, and social turmoil. Up between Russia and Ukraine have as to the 1654 Pereiaslav agreement, and their base a fundamental clash over ·:he even after it, Ukrainian (Ruthenian) historical role of Ukraine. Are Ukraini elites were trying to find a place within ans and Russians the same people? Are the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Ukrainians somewhat distinct only Only after the failure to reach an because their "Russianness" has been accommodation within Poland corrupted by Polish practices? Are Lithuania did Ukrainian elites begin Ukrainians really a distinct nation bot.'L looking toward Muscovy and involv in the past and in the present?1 ing it in Ukrainian affairs. In their In this c~ash, both sides are looi< encounter with Russia in the seven ing at the same historical experience teenth century, Ukrainian elites were but reaching diametrically opposed primarily focusing on and reacting to conclusions. To a large extent, each political, social, religious, and cultL:ral side selects examples that corroborate issues within the Polish-LithLaniar. its own interpretation and ignores or Commonwealth. explains away evidence to the contrary. By the sixteenth century, the But the problem is deeper than this, fer Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth there is ar. ambiguity to the Russo w as, in theory, a "Republic of the Ukrainian encounter from its very Nobles" of two territories, the King inception in the seventeenth century. dom of Poland and the Grand Duchy Much of the ambiguity comes from of Lithuania. The nobles, encompass posturing; from what Kliuchevsky has ing the political nation, could be of said about the 1654 Pereiaslav agree diverse ethnic origins-Polish, ment, in which both sides "did not sc.y Lithuanian, Ruthenian, or German what they thought and did what they and diverse faiths-Roman Catholic, did not wish ·:o do."2 In these encour. Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox-but ters both sides found it convenient t0 had individual liberties and equal overlook differences and concentrate rights. Reality differed greatly from on areas of real o:- imagined unity. But theory, particularly in the territories of how did Ukrainian elites view the the Commonwealth inhabited by relationship witr. Russia? In which Ruthenians (Ukrainians and 1 Belarusians). There was no equality the Protestant reforms. =n the program among the nobles: political leadership matic vision of the Jesuit ideologue, was exercised by the princely houses Peter Skarga, confessional unity was of the Rurikids and the Gedyminids, essential for political unity, and East while the nobles, descended from the ern Orthodoxy was considered :tot boyars, acted as subordinates and only erroneous, but also s·.1bversive of retainers. Although the Union of the state.5 Owing to increasing political Lublin, which transferred Volhynia pressure, accompanied by a flowering and the K yiv land from the Grand of Polish culture, Ruthenian nobles Duchy ::o Poland, did not create a third began converting to Roman Catholi Rus' entity, it did guarantee the rights cism and adopting the Polish language of tr_e Ruthenian language and recog and culture. As the Ruthenian political nized the laws of Rus' as the official natio!l declined because of these code in the annexed territories. The defections, the remaining Ruthenian Rus' faith-Eastern Orthodoxy elites-both nobles anc_ clergy-began provided another link to the ancient looking for ways of defining a Kiev. Thus, despite Lithuanian and, Ruthenian identity tt..at would find after 1569, Polish rule, Ukrainian acceptance in the political, social, and society ?reserved the social structure, cultural structure of the Common religious faith, language, and law code w ealth. One attemp~ was the Church of Kievan Rus'.3 Union at Brest (1596), whereby the Ukrainians conceived of unity Ruthenian Orthodox C~urch recog within the Commonwealth primarily as nized the pope but reta:ned its eastern a political matter. They were part of the Christian traditions. Ar_other response Polish political nation because they was a vigorous Orthodox Slavic reform belonged to the sz!achta. There were that attempted to cot,;.nter the Catholic ethnic, :::-eligious, and cultural differences attacks on theologica ~ , w_tellectual, and between the Ruthenian sz!achta and the even cultural grounds. l!l the end, Polish, Lithuanian, and German nobili these efforts failed. By the seventeenth ties, but -fuese were not significant for the century, the Commo:1wealth was unity of the state. Thus a Ukrainian increasingly becoming an association nobleman could be designated as gente of Romar: Catholic, c1lturally Polish ruthenus, natione polonus. Since religious noblemen. Others were considered and cultural differences were encom politically unreliable, heretical, or passed within the political nation, these simply uncivilized and unsuited to be differences were tolerated in other orders part of the political nation. Thus the of society.4 Because some members of the areas that Ukrainians had defined as sz!achta were Orthodox, townsfolk or distinct-religion and culture-were even peasants could also be Orthodox. no longer legitimate. -:.Jnity in the vVhile this is a highly idealized and Commonwealth had to pertain to all theoretical picture, it does reflect to some spheres. The political sz!achta nation degree the tolerance and cultural hetero had to be Roman CaboEc in religion geneity of the Polish-Lithuanian Com and Polish in language and culture.6 monwealth up to the mid-sixteenth In attempting to find a place for a century. reformed Eastern Orthodoxy and In the latter half of the sixteenth Ruthenian culture in the Polish century, Ruthenian Orthodox society Lithua:Uan Commonwealth, the was challenged intellectually by both Ruthenian clerical and cultural elites the Catholic Counter-Reformation and erJered a i. arger struggle between 2 Eastern and Westen Churches, be and Turks. The Cossacks saw them tween Greek-Slavonic and Latin-Polish selves as frontier knights, a military cdture-in essence; a struggle be order that possessed certain "rights ::Ween West and East. It was hardly an and liberties." Although, at times, the even struggle, for the Western side Commonwealth recognized these simply viewed the East as heretical, rights for some of the Cossacks, the ~gnorant, and backward, while the idea of a non-noble brotherhood of 2astern side, using Western learning, Cossack warriors with liberties clashed a':tempted to prove its doctrinal cor fundamentally with the concept of a rectness and create a revitalized hu Commonwealth of free nobles. The rr:anistic Ruther.ian Orthodox Slavic lack of recognition of Cossack estate learning. While the Ruthenian side rights led to a series of Cossack :-evolts, ~c~.1ld never bridge the gap of per including the :ateful one of 1648. 9 :::eived inferiori0' within the Polish Up to the end of the sixteenth =-.itr.uanian CorrJnonwealth, it was century, the ~eadership of Rus' was still certain that it had created the most exercised by the princely households en:ightened Orthodox Church-one and executed through a system of tll.at could and should play a leading subordinate noble retainers.10 For ro~e in the renovation of Eastern example, the princes of Ostri~. ied ':he :Jrthodox Christianity.7 Orthodox revival by printing the The new learning and polemics Orthodox Bible and founding the over the churd·. union sparked a keen Ostrih academy, which generated the interest in history, particularly that of cadres for the revival in the late six Kievan Rus'. In the early seventeenth teenth and early seventeenth centuries. century, not only were the old Kievan However, owing to the extinction of chronicles recopied, but new historical some princely households and the writing brought then up to more conversion to Roman Catholi~ism and contemporary times. The polemical Polish culture of others, princely literature debating the Union of Brest leadership began to wane and the made use of the Rus' past. Moreover, subordinate Ukrainian nobility jecame spurred by Polish historical writings, disoriented. By the time of the the Ukrainian authors introduced new Khmel'nyts'kyi uprising, the lesser terminology and concepts into histo!"y Ukrainian nobles had either become w riting, such as a Rus' "fatherland" Polish or joined the Cossacks, but had and a Ruthenian or Rus' people. These ceased to act or: behalf of a Ruthenian writings went beyond the Polish noble estate. A new leadership role was Lithuanian concept of a sz!achta nation assumed, rather hesitantly, by the and implied the existence of a Rus' Cossacks. In 1620, the entire hierarchy nation that included the Orthodox of the then outlawed Orthodox c:,.urch Ruthenian population from various was consecrated in Kiev under Cossack estates.8 protection. From that time or., ~he The religious and social picture :.r. Cossacks fought not only for their Ukraine was .Urther complicated by estate rights, but also for the Ras' faith. 11 the emergence of a new social group Despite the increasing intoler the Cossacks. Recruited primarily from ance, the Ruthenian elites, including non-noble elements of the populatior., the remaining sz!achta, the Orthodox the Cossacks organized themselves clergy, and the Cossack officers, ex into a military host that defended the pressed loyalty to and identity w:th southern frontier agamst the Tatars the Polish-Lithuanian Commcnwealth. 3
------The re7ival of the Rus' faith, tr_e wealth is the true mother of Rus', who renewed interest in Rus' histor; a::.d grieves over the injustice done to Rus' culture, and the recognitior of a dis by his brothers.B tinct Rathenian or Rus' people ::alled The fundamer_tal oudook of the for sor:-,e political recognition a:td 0krainian elites had been shaped by acceptance for Rus' within d~e ::= :xn the Polish-Lithuanian experience. The monwealth. But finding a place for Orthodox clerical elite strongly identi Ukraine or Rus' withir_Po J. and fied itself with an enlightened Ortho Lithuania would require a ~nda r:-.en doxy in competition with Catholicism tal rest:::-ucturing of the Common and the West. Both secular and clerical wealth. Such an attempt was mad:~ ir_ elites had a concept of a Common 1658, after Ukraine's break with th~ wealth or state composed of several Commonwealth and the 1654 political entities-Poland, Lithuania, Pereiaslav agreement with Musco-q. and possibly Rus'. Historical writings The Treaty of Hadiach (1658) trar.s .b..ad spread the idea of a Rus' people formed the dual Commonwealtl-_i ::.to a and of ancient Rus' as a direct historical confederation of three states: the Polisi1. predecessor. And parts of Ukrainian Crown, the Grand Duchy of Lithuc- ::-tia, society believed in the political "rights and the Grand Duchy of Rus'. Rus' and l~berties" of estates and lands, had its own administration, treasury, part.cularly of the Cossack estate. These army, and jt:diciary, while the rights of beliefs and perceptions would color the the Orthodox Church were to be behavior of Ukrainians as they encoun guaranteed throughout the Common tered Muscovy and the Russians. wealthY But the arrangement could The Search for Links wi&. Muscovy/ not succeed, because it required that Russia Ukraine, in the form of the Grand Duchy of Rus', return to szlachta rule, '"::'he Ukrainian elites, striving to while Ukraine was governed defac to be included in the sz!achta nation of the by the Cossacks. The attempted en Commonwealth, generally avoided noblement of Cossack officers was maintaining any overt links with accepted neither by the Polish or Muscovy. If in Polish eyes Rus' was Lithuanian szlachta nor by the Cossack backward and schisrr.atic, :hen Mus rank and file. Thus, the most funda covy was nothing less thar. barbaric. mental defidtion of the Common Moreover, Muscovy was frequently an wealth, as a composite of the szlachta enemy of the Commonwealth, and nation, could not be maintained. links with it could be viewed as trea Muscovy, moreover, now deeply sonous. Nevertheless, the Ukrainian involved in Ukrainian affairs, would elites were aware that Muscovy w as not permit the existence of a Rus' state the only independent a:c,d powerful as part of the Commonwealth. Never Orthodox polity. Some elements of the theless, the idea of Rus' as part of the Ukrainian clergy began looking to Commonwealth continued to linger. In Muscovy for religious, political, and 14 the early eighteenth century, a popular financial support. poem viewed Poland as the mother of As the Ukrainians began coming three children: Liakh, Rus', and Lytva. to Muscovy, seeking alms for monas Liakh and Lytva killed their brother teries or subsidies for pubEcations, R.1s' against the will of Poland, the they were treated with considerable mother. The poem tries to make the hostility. The Muscovites suspected the point that Poland or the Common- Ukrainians' Orthodoxy and viewed
------the "Lithuanians" or "Cherkasy," as The main thesis of the work is they called them, as foreign and daT: 2ncapsulated in its title, The Sinopsis, or gerous. The Ukrainians persisted and short compilation from various chronicles, developed the terminology and cor. about the beginning of the Slavic-Rus' cepts that would bring ~us' and ;tation and thefirst princes of the God Muscovy closer together. saved city of Kiev and the life of the holy, Given their renewed interest in devout prince of Kiev and all 'Rossiia, // the Rus' past, the Ukrainian clerics of !'he first autocrat Volodimer and about the the 1620s and 1640s turned not only tc pious sovereign, tsar, andgrand prince their own historical tradition, but also Aleksei Mtkhatlovich, autocrat of all Great, to Polish and Muscovite sources. From Little and White Rossiia. The at:tr.or the Polisr. historians, particularly intertwines concepts of a people, Stryjkowski, they learned about Slavic dynasty, and state. He begins in pre unity and that ancient R~1s' was com Kievan times with the "slaveno mon to both Muscovites and rossiiskii narod," which is subse Ruthenians. More irr.portantly, in quently ruled by the "Varang~an trying to define and differentiate Rus' princes," beginning with llior from Lithuania and Poland within the Rurykovych. For subsequent periods Corrunonwealth, these writers began of history, the author uses the terms looking more closely at Muscovite "rossy," "rusy," and "rossiia:1e" :.r-. chronicle writing. From such sources, order to describe a people inhabiting a the Ukrainian writers created a!'. image historical territory north of the Biack of the Rus' past that ~ranscended Sea, between the Volga-Don anG. current political boundaries. In fact, Danube-Dniester-Dnieper river sys the seventeenth-century Ukrainian tems. Although no northern bm.:.ndary writers incorporated, somewhat is given, Novgorod velikd is includedY mechanically, a number of contradic The author of the Sinopsis states that tory views of Rus'-Polish, Ukrainian, the Rurikide princely family estab and Russian-into their writings. By lished the Russian state. This assembling these varied traditions, gosudarstvo Rossdskoie emerges L:lly some of these writers were able to link with Volodirr.er's conversion to Ch:.-is Ukraine and Muscovy through faith, tianity and encompasses Musco7y as dynasty, land, and even people.15 well as the lands of the Polish The work that went farthest in Lithuanian Corrunonwealth.18 T~e establishing such links was the Sinopsis, story of the Russian state is, in fact, the frequently described as the first history story of the Rurikide family, whic:t of the Eastern Slavs. Attributed to allows the author to include :n be Innokentij Gizel', the archimandrite of chronicle various fragments of Russian the Kiev Caves Monastery, the Sinopsis and Ukrainian history (including an first appeared in Kiev between 1670 extensive episode on Dmitrii Donskoi) and 1674.16 While attempting to enlist and link various territories, time the help of the tsar, the author fiercely frames, and centers of power. For maintained the auton::>my of the Caves example, when the princely seat of Monastery vis-a-vis the Kiev Rus' is moved from Kiev to Vladimir metropolitanate and the Moscow on the Kliaz' rna, and from there to patriarch. For Gizel', it was vital that Moscow, this occurs because it suits the monastery retain its stauropigial princely desires.19 The creation of two status, subordinated directly to the metropolitanates (Kiev and Moscow) is Patriarch of Constantino:>le. due to the fact that one part of Rus' 5 (Kiev) comes under the rule of a traces the history :>f Rus' during the foreign prince, the Lithuanian Kievan period, then describes how Vytautas.20 And, most importantly, Lithuania absorbed Rus', and finally when Kiev comes under Muscovite focuses on Poland's entry into Rus' rule, this is lauded because 11the bst history. He shows ::ttle concern for the born o£ all the cities of Rossiia, :h£ Russian territories cf Rus'. Like Gizel' tsarstvennyi city of Kiev, 11 1:3.5 orne in the Sinopszs, Sofo::1ovych concen under the rule of the pravos!avnyi irates on rulers, but the Russian samoderzhets. 21 Orthodoxy is also ~urikides are of no interest to him. identified with the tsar, la::1d, and :nstead, he lavishes :,.is attention on people. Thus the wars that the :?rince Danylo of Galicia-Volhynia. He Zaporozhian Cossacks fig~1.t aga:r:3t t!-~e sees the Muscovites and Ruthenians as Turks are waged in the interests of the separate peoples. In describing hetman pravos!avnyi rossiiskii narod Rus' is Khmel'nyts'ky's p:acement of Ukraine called pravos!avnyi krai and the tsar is under the suzerainty of Muscovite tsar, referred to as the pravos!avnyi Sofonovych simply reports the event samoderzhets. 22 without expressing any opinion about Despite considerable confusion in it.23 its account of history and etl:nography, It must be remembered that the :he Sinopsis brought together a number search for Rus', whe~her within the of ideas that had been reverberating in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Ukraine during the second half of the under the Muscovite tsar, occurred seventeenfr. century: (1) Rus', or, as it against the background of continuous was beginning to be referred to in the crises and turmoil in Ukraine: the 1670s-80s, 1/Little Russia," on account renewal of the Orthodox hierarchy of its historical ties to the house of (1620), the Khmel'nyts'kyi revolt (1648), Rurik and its Orthodox faith, belonged the Pereiaslav agreement with Muscovy within a larger, all-Russian context; (2) (1654), and a period of continuous although there was ethnic multiplicity, warfare over Ukraine k::1own as the t_l:tere was also a larger pravos!avnyi Ruin (1660s-80s). After three decades of rosti'skii narod that inhabited the terri conflict, the Ukrainian elite was slaugh tory of the house of Rurik; (3) Rossti'a, tered, and Right-Bank Ukraine (west of which included Muscovy and Little the Dnieper river) devastated and Russia, and the entire rossziskii narod depopulated. For some me:nbers of the were to be ruled by the Orthodox elite, gaining the protectior. of the autocrat, whose ancestry derived from Muscovite tsar and the powerful the house of Rurik; (4) the Muscovite Muscovite state seemed the only means tsar represented the continuation of of attaining a measure of stability. the house of Rurik (the fact that the In turning to the M:.1scovite tsar, tsars were no longer Rurikides was the author of the Sinopsis and numer never mentioned). ous other Ukrainian petitioners were The Sinopsis' somewhat extreme seeking the help of Muscovy in pro Russocentrism was one view among moting and protecting S!avza several ~1.eld by members of the Ukrai Orthodoxa. This Slavic Orthodox world, nian cle::-ical elite. In the 1670s, based on the Orthodox faith, the Feodosii Sofonovych, the archimandrite Slavonic language, Byzantine and of the Monastery of St. Michael of the post-Byzantine culture, the literary and Golden Domes, wrote another major artistic styles of Rus', and the South historical work, Kronika. Sofonovych Slavic influence included Ukraine, 6 Belarus, Muscovy, Bulgaria, and non religion, dynasty, high culture, and Slavic Moldova. It was this culture of even ethnos, they insisted on their Slavia Orthodoxa that was threatened l:Jy own distinctiveness within the existing the Catholic Counterreformation in the political, ecclesiastical, and social Polish-Li thuania11 Commonwealth. 24 structures. For the most part, t~e In countering the Polish, Catholic, proponents of Ukrainian political and and Western challenge, the Ukrainian social distinctiveness were the secular prelates, to some extent, transformed the political elite. However, the clergy culture of Slavin Orthodoxa. They cow_ were also adamant defenders of Ukrai bined post-Byzantine and Western nian privileges, particularly their Jwn. cultural models, introducing the "Greek The secular political elite was Latin-Slavonic'' school (the Ostrih represented by the Cossack officers academy and the Kiev Mohyla col and the Cossack administration that de legium). They attempted to provide .facto ruled Ukraine. This elite per Orthodox answers to theological ques formed two political roles, acting as tions never before posed in the Ortho representatives of their own estates dox world. Per:b..aps the most lasting and, in some fashion, as representa Ukrainian contribution to the revitalized tives of Ukraine. This dual role of the Slavia Orthodoxa was the recodification ~f Cossack elite was in effect a continua Church Slavonic so that it would eqt:al tion of the role it had assumed after the Latir. as a sacreC. language. The 1648 Khmel'nyts'kyi revolt. Two "Meletian" (named after Meletii important documents defined the Smotryts'kyi, compiler cf the grammar) political status that the Cossacks were norm of Church Slavonic became the accorded in seventeenth-century standard not only in Ukraine, but Ukraine, the Zboriv Treaty and the throughout Slama Orthodoxa. 25 Pereiaslav Agreement.27 The Zboriv In fact, a spiritual and cultural Treaty, concluded with Poland in 1649, revitaiization of Slavia Orthodoxa affirmed that the relationship of the through Ukrainian learning was the King of Poland with the Cossack elite vision of such Ukrainiarc clerics as was that of a contractual bond between Smotryts'kyi. As he contemplated the the sovereign and the Zaporozhian Orthodox world, he saw it in chains, army. That army, in turn, had virtual except in Muscovy, where it was free control over a good part of Ukraine. but ignorant, and in Ukraine, where The Pereiaslav Agreement concluded_ Orthodoxy was both free and learned.26 with Muscovy in 1654 was modeled on It was this learning that the Ukrainian the Zboriv Treaty. 28 From the Cossack clerics wanted to bring to Muscovy. In point of view, the Pereiaslav Ag:-ee going to Muscovy they were not only ment maintained the same contractual obtaining protection, alms, or a good relationship between the Zaporozhian office, but also attempting to create a army and the monarch: in this case, the united revitalized Orthodoxy capable of Muscovite tsar was substituted for ~e meeting the Roman Catholic and Polish king. The idea of a contractual Protestant challenges. relationship between tsar and subject The Insistence on Distinctiveness was, however, incompatible with tb.e from Muscovy/Russia Muscovites' sense of authority. The Muscovite interpretation of the At the same time that some Pereiaslav Agreement was tha~ of Ukrainians were attempting to find unilateral submission of the C~ssacl i the "Little Russia" in his dealings wit1. the Hadiach Union and the Right-Bc..r.k Muscovites. Nevertheless, a number of Ukrainian hetmans), the Ottoma::1 :erms-"Ukraine," "Little Russia," Empire (i.e., Hetman Doroshenko), anc "Rus"'--continued to be utilized in Sweden (i.e., Hetman Ivan Mazepa) :iesignati:.1g Ukraine.31 It was only after the Battle of T!1.e gradual acceptance of the Poltava (1709) that Russian cont:-ol ·:erm "Little Russia," ~he emergence of over the Ukrainian Cossack ?oli·::y, a historical consciousness, and the idea referred to as the Hetmanate, was ')f loyalty to a UkrairJan political sealed. ;n the post-Poltava period the -=ntity and its relationship to Russia secular ?Olitical elite, the Cossack -Nas elaborated in a new historical/ officers, gradua:ly transformed ·:he ~ ~- :iterary genre, the Cossack chronicle. selves ir:to a szlachta or gentry. ~.!--,ey :n fact, this genre was partially developed a more consisten~ po:itica ~ sparked by the indignation felt by the outlook that attempted to blend tl--£ -Jkrairjan Cossack elite over the presumed unity of the emerging clergy's inattention to the Cossaci<. Orthodox Slaveno-Russian empire polity. In 1718, Stefar. Savyts'kyi, a with the political and social distinc clerk in the Lubny regir:1.ent, lamee1ted tiveness of Ukraine. that none of his countrymen had The Little Russian concept w ritten a history, "particularly fro~n emergeci gradually throughout the the spiritual rank, who since the time eighteenth century.30 Its basic elements of emancipation from Poland lacked were the acceptance of the term "Little neither people capable of the task nor Russia" Ior Ukraine or part of Ukraine, the necessary typographical means."32 the emergence of a specific Ukrainian In response, the Cossack elite pro historical consc:ousness, the duced its own history. Two of the most conceptualization of a distinct "Little influential Cossack :Lronicles were Russia" -~hat was nevertheless part of a those of Hryhorii Hrabianka (1710) larger Russian imperial scheme, and and Samuil Velychkc (1720).33 3
------The two works are not really version, the tsarist envoys at Pereiaslav chronicles but histories that attempt to swore in the name of the tsar that all document and explain how the new Ukrainian rights would be respected in Ukrainian Cossack polity came into perpetuity. 37 existence. For both works, the central Unlike the Sinopsis, the CossacK event was the great uprising under the chronicles developed no general leadership of Bohdan Khmel'nyts'~yi, scheme of East European history, nor who is presented as the hero and did they present justifications :or founder of the Cossack state. At the tsarist protection based on dynastic same time, both chronicles connect the claims, or even link Ukraine with Cossack polity with an ancient lineage. Russia on the basis of religion or In Hrabianka's case, the Ukrainian ethnicity. They strove to present the Cossacks are linked to the Khazars and story of Ukraine from the Ukrainian toRus'. Velychko asserts that the Cossack point of view. For them, the Sarmatian Cossack ~us' provinces :-._ad Kievan Rus' period is the mt:rky past: beer. "the Ukrainian Little Russian their primary interest is in C0ssaci.< fatherland" since the time of Ukraine under Poland, the g:eat Volodimer, who baptized Rus'.34 Both liberator hetman Bohdan chronicles attempt to show by this Khmel'nyts'kyi, and Cossack ar:d lineage the historical continuity and szlachta rights and liberties. A: the same legitimacy of the current political ar:C. time, these post-Poltava authors social order. wanted to show their loyalty to the tsar. Both chronicles exhibit a great The Cossack chronicles demon dea: of terminological fluidity in strate and infer a number of crucial referring to Ukraine.35 In Hrabianka, components of the emerging Little "Rus'," Ros,' "Rossiia," "Mala Russian concept: (1) that Little Russia Rossiia," "Malaia Rossiia," and Great Russia were separate lands "Malorussiia," "Ruthenia," and peoples; (2) that the two lands "Malorossiis~aia Ukraina," and w ere linked by a common tsar; ~3) that "Ukraina" are all used to indicate the Zaporozhian army, the Little Ukraine or Ukrainian teritory. Russian people, and Little Russia i:self Velychko uses the terms "Rus'," "Little entered into voluntary agreements first Rus'," "Cossack-Rus," ":Jkraina," and with the Polish king and later with the "Little Russia" when referring to Muscovite tsar; and (4) that Litee Cossack Ukraine. Both chronicles Russia and its ;>eople always retai~ed distinguish Ukraine from Muscovy their "rights and liberties." and Ukrainians from Russians. In the second half of the eigh Hrabianka presents the Pereiaslav teenth century, the Little RussiaE Agreement as a pact necessitated by concept appears as a fully developed political and military circumstances.36 viewpoint in two important sources, Because of the common Orthodox the Razgovor Velikorossii s Malorossiei faith, Khmel'nyts'ky: was able to and the works of Hryhorii Poletyka. obtain the tsar's protection over However, there are two significant Ukraine and a guarantee of Cossack changes from the views of the Cossack rights. Velychko develops further than chronicles. Although the chronicles Hrabianka the idea of a contractual had shown little precision as to the relationship between Little Russia and territorial extent of Little Russia, they its people on the one hand and the tsar presumed that at the very least Litt~e on the other hand. In Velychko' s Russia encompassed Ukraine ::>r. beth I 9
------sides of the Dnieper. Later aut::.ors still Russia has its own rigr.ts guaranteed by use the ter:n in this larger sense vr ~
------formation of Muscovite culture. Some Ukrainian clerics did help to "jump scholars, George Florovsky, saw this start" Muscovy's transformatior. into transformation as a tragedy, a corrup Imperial Russia. Soon other ideas and tion of orthodoxy and Russian cultc:re developments made that process more by Latin, Catho!ic, and Protestant European and, paradoxically, also elements.45 Others, Prince Nikolai more Russia::1.. Cameralism and the Trubetskoi and Dmitrii Likhachev, concept of the well-ordered police w elcomed the Ukrainian influx as state, imported from the Germanies, beneficia: "Ukrainization" of Musc0- formed the intellectual underpinnings vite culture which greatly enriched of the new state activism. The Russia.46 Most scholars credit Ukrai cameralists had the political goal of nian humanism in preparing the maximizing society's productive Petrine "revolution" and in aiding in potential thrm.:gh the agency of the the transformaEon of Muscovy intc state, which assumed the role of modem RussiaY policing and developing society. From Recently, Max Okenfuss advan:::ed the time of Peter I, the Russian Empire a revisionist view that the large infl"Jx pursued the goals of increasing the of Ukrainians had a minimal impact en power and wealth of the state not only Russian culture. By carefully studyi:>g through annexation and cor..quest, :,ut both book and manuscript libraries in also by atterr.pting to rationalize Russia, Okenfuss concluded that government, extract greater state Orthodoxy comoined with humanism revenues, and :ncrease productivity. 50 was limited to Ukrainians and other In its activism, Westernization, foreigners. Okenfuss argues for a and pursuit of reforms, Imperia! fundamental cultural autarky of both Russia began developing a more the Muscovite nobility and most of the secular, cosmopolitan, and, at the same clergy He claims that the "Ukrainian time, more Russian imperial culture Lithuanian-Belorussian community that initially supplemented and ~en w as small, isolatzd, and alien" and began to displace Slaveno-Rossiar, that "the growth of humane secular culture. Primary in this process was learning was not an organic develop the development of a modern literary ment within Muscovite society, but the Russian language and secular Russ~an struggle of Kievans-the struggle of literature. The Russian Imperial state Ukrainian huma:usts to make them introduced the civil alphabe':, which selves head above the din raised by an sharpened distinctions between eccle avalanche of psalters and liturgical siastical and civil linguistic fo:-ms; books."48 At most, Ukrainian human published grammars and dict:onaries; ism created "Russian Levites," a caste and produced works dealing wil:h all w ith education alien to those of the aspects of the secular wori.d, frorr. nobles, most of :he middle estates, and practical manuals to translaticns of the peasantry.49 foreign literature.51 The linguistic Inrespective of the resistance to medium that began to emerge was a humanistic Slave!l.o-Rossian culture in middle style that incorporatec~ ele Muscovy, this cu:ture produced by the ments of the "high" style of Slaveno Ukrainian clerics was subsequerJly Rossian and the "low" style of co:Io viewed as a point of unity between quial Russian. By the ninetee::1.th Russia and Ukraine and as an impor century, the new literary Russian had tant step in the evolution of modern become the linguistic medium of the Russian culture. Moreover, these empire. At the same time, the imperial I :!. 3 elites had an increasing knowledge of number of basic flaws. First, it could German and, by the end of the eigh not accommodate the prevailing ~eenth century, French. Although concept of tsarist authority and power. elements of Slaveno-Rossian culture From the time at Pereiaslav when survived well i:lto the nineteenth tsarist envoys refused to take an oath century, it was gradually being rel on behalf of the tsar because such an egated to Orth'Jdox Church services act was an unthinkable encroachment and spiritual Eterature. on autocratic rule, Ukrainian "rights For the Ukrainian elites, the and liberties" were at the mercy of evolving Russian Empire p:esented tsarist wishes and even whims. L is both opportunities and dangers. A true that in the seventeenth century strong Orthodox state, based largely the tsar had issued charters upon each on Slaveno-Rossian culture, and election of a Ukrainiar. hetman, challenging both Poland-Lithuania thereby de facto con~irming traditional and the Tatar-Ottoman world, certainly "rights and liberties." Moreover, every fulfilled the aspirations of at least a break with Muscovy /Russia by part of the Ukrainian clerical elite. The Het~ans Vyhovs'kyi, Dor'Jshenko, and evolution of the Little Russian concept Mazepa was justified by the Ukraini allowed the clerical and non-clerical ans with the argurr.ent that the tsar elites to express political loyalty to the had violated his solemr, obligations tsar and a greater Russia while, at the toward Ukraine.52 But ooligations to same time, insisting on specific "Little subjects were antithetical both to Russian rights and liberties." The traditional autocracy and l::o the more cameralist police-state concepts were modern absolutism of the eighteenth not hostile to such regional autonomy century. In the final analysis, the and corporate traditions. Ir_ fact, the Ukrainian elite had no legal or moral cameralist practice was to subordinate recourse when its "rights" were vio the corporate bodies to the new state lated; it could only appeal to tradition purpose rather than to curtail or and the tsar's sense of justice. abolish them. Nor was the evolving The Little Russian concept also Russian imperial culture considered a clashed with Enlightenment ideas that threat by the Ukrainian elite, since it became dominant in mid-eighteenth continued to share high culture, century Russia. While cameralism whether Slaveno-Rossian or a mixture recognized regional, ~ ------Cat!'lerine II's introduction of the Little Russian gentry to be recog what she conceived to be the "best of nized as part of the Imperial all orders"53 resulted in administrative dvorianstvo. 54 Previously, the Little uniformity for the Empire, including R1:,ssian gentry had attempted to claim Ukraine. The Hetmanate was divided ~h~ sa:r _e rights as those enjoyed by the into three provinces; the Ukrainian szlachta under Polish-Lithuanian rule. 55 administrative, military, and fiscal ':'h~s, of course, was unacceptable to institutions were dismantled; and a Ca~~erine, as the Polish szlachta en new Russian imperial provincial and jOyeG. much greater privileges than did district administration was installed. the Russian dvoriane. The abolition of Similarly, the Orthodox Church in all Ukrainian institutions and f:1e Ukraine was reorganized along impe introduction of the 1775 provinciai rial lines. By the beginning of the regulations, however, finally forced the nineteenth century, iittle remained af Imperial Russian authorities to recog the legal institutions, historical legacy, nize the Little Russian gentry.56 Since and corporate "rights and liberties" nobles were to play an essential role in which, in Ukrainian eyes, distin the new provincial administration, the guished them from Russians. former claim that there were "no The Remnants of Distinctiveness: The nobles in Little Russia" had to be Little Russian Concept in the Early dropped, and a Little Russian Nineteenth Century dvorianstvo had to be created out of the old Ukrainian gentry. The Ukrainian The abolition of the Hetmanate's elite's integration into the Russian institutions and the :.ntroduction of an nobility, along with the complete imperial administration effected the enserfment cf the Ukrainian ?easa!ltry gradual fusion of the Ukrainian anc in 1783, provided the Ukrainian gentry Russian social structures. Yet alongside with unprecedented opportunities to this absorption of the Ukrainiar, elite pursue imperial careers and to acquire into the Russian Imperial system, the immense wealth.57 As a result, as a Little Russian identity continued to noble class they absolutely dominated exist. It existed as a subset either of an the local administration of Little all-Russian identity or o: one centered Russia. on the notion of Empire. The Little The second factor that ensured Russian identity con!:im:ed to exist the continuation of the Little Russian because of a number of factors: (1) the concept was the survival of Ukrainian Ukrainiar. gentry's dorn.:.nant role in common law. In 1801, Ukrainian courts the Imperial administration of Little on the territory of Little Russia were Russia; (2) the survival of Ukrainian abolished and repiaced with Imperial customary law; (3) the c::casional Russian courts.58 Ukrainian common restitution of certain legal and military law, however, was appended to the formations traditional to Little Russia; Russian law code in these courts, thus and (4) an interest in the history and ensuring that the legal system in Little folklore of Ukraine that helped nurture Russia would continue to operate the idea of a Little Russian fatherland. somewhat differently from that of the The first factor, the gentry's role in rest of the Russian Empire. 59 These the administration of this territory, was legal peculiarities survived until the due to the Little Russian gentry's 1917 Revolution as the only remaining acceptance into the Imperial ruling vestige of the Hetmanate's former class. In 1785, Catherine II permitted autonomous status. 15 The third factor that sustained a tory. The lstoriia Rusov was enormously sense of Little Russian identity was the popular among the nobility of the occasional restitution of certain legal former Hetmanate a::td circulated and military institutions that had widely in manuscript form. While previously bee:::. abolished. For ex recognizing Ukrainian history as a ample, Ukrainian traditionalists w ere special branch of a greater "all-Rus able to convince the imperial authori sian" entity, the work at the same time ties to partially restore one 8f the most stresses Ukrainian separateness and is important elements of Cossack an eloquent apology for the Hetrnanate Ukraine-the Cossack army. During the and Cossack rights and privileges. Its Napoleonic invasion, fifteen Cossack tone, at times, is qu:.:e anti-Russian, regiments were reestablished and then and it insists that Ukraine has certain disbanded afte: the RussiaP victory.60 inalienable and guaranteed rights that During the i830 Polish uprising, Tsar must be upheld. However, the lstoriia Nicholas autho!"ized the reactivation of Rusov never questions the tsar's claim eight Cossack regiments co!1sisting of to sovereignty over Little Russia 1,200 men each.61 Again, once the indeed, it looks to the tsar in the hope uprising was cr..tshed, t..'-le Cossack units that he will maintain the last remnants were no longer needed and were of Ukrainian autonomy, and ever. subsequently disbanded. Ary attempt restore the traditional rights of the to revitalize the Cossacks as :Tee war Ukrainian elite. riors of old Ukraine, however, was But no restoration was :>ossible. forestalled by Imperial oppositior_ a:1d ::::>n the contrary, the imperial authori by the Cossacks' own economic :iecline ties continued to pursue a policy of By 1837 the Cossacks were placed administrative uniformity. The loss of under the jurisdiction of the Mir.ist:y o~ any semblance of po:itical distinctive State Properties ~Ministerstvo : :s Notes 1. For a discussion of the current Russo-Ukrainian disputes on history and relevant literature, see my article, "History as a Battleground: Russian-Ukrainian Relations and Historical Consciousness in Cor.temporary Ukraine," in S. Frederick Starr, ed., The Legacy of History in Russia and the l!ew States of Eurasia (Armonk, 1994), -:.23-46. 2. V.O. Kliuc~~evskii, Kurs russkoi istorit~ 3: 118, in his Sochineniia, 8 vols. (Moscow, 1956-59). 3. The literature on the history of tl-,e Lithuanian-Ruthen:an state and the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth is volL.minous. The works most relevant for our analysis include M.K. Liubavskii, Ocherk istorii Litovsko-russkogo gosudarstva do Liublinskoi unii vkliuchitel'no (Moscow, 1910) and F.M. Shabul'do, Zemli Iugo Zapadnoi Rusi v sostave Velikogo kniazhestva Litovskogo (Kiev, 1987). For a discussion of the nobility in the Ukrainian lands af~er 1569, with extensive bibliographic notes, see Frank E. Sysyn, "The Problem of Nobilities in the Ukrainian Past: The Polish Period, 1569-1648," in Ivan L. Rudnytsky, ed., Rethinking Ukrainian History (Edmonton, 1987), 29-102. The most recent, and extremely valuable, addition to the literature of the subject is N.M. Iakovenko, Ukrains'ka shliakhta z kintsia XIV do seredyny XVII st.: ( Volyn' i Tsentral'na Ukraina) (Kiev, 1993). 4. Natalia Ial 19 10. This notion is developeci in Iakovenko, Ukrains'ka shliakhta, 268-69. 11. The Cossac~< intervention in the religious str~fe is best treated in volume 6 of Hrushevs'kyi's Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy. See also ':'eresa Chynczewska-Henne~, "The National Consciousness of Ukrainian Nobles and Cossacks from the End of the Sixteenth to the Mid-Seven~een th Century," Concepts of Nationhood in Early Modern Eastern Europe, 377-92. 12. Andrzej Kaminski, "The Cossack Experiment :n Szlachta Democracy ::1 the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: The Hadiach (Hadziacz) Union," Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol.l, no.2, June 1977: 178-97. 13. See Serhii Plokhii, "The Symbol of Little Russia: The Pokrova Icon and Early Modem Ukrainian Political Ideology," Journal of Ukrainian Studies 17, nos. 1-2 (Sununer-Winter 1992): 173. The poem, "Hlaholet Pol'shcha .. .," is reprin:ed in Ukrains'ka lzteratura XVII stolzttia. Synkretychna pysemnist~ Poeziia. Dramaturhiia. Beletrystyka (Kiev, 1987), 284-85, 56~5. 14. The state of Ukrainian Grthodox Church in the seventeenth century is described in V. Eingom, 0 snosheniiakh malorossiiskogo dukhovenstva s moskovskim pravztel'stvom v tsarstvovanie Alekseia Mikhailovicha (Moscow, 1894); Metropolitan Makani (Bulgakov), Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 12 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1889-1903), vol. 12; Ivan Vlasovs'kyi, Narys istorii Ukrains'koi pravoslavnoi tserkvy, 4 vols. (Bound Brook, N.J., 1956-66), vol. 2. The subordi~ation of the Kiev metropolitan to the Moscow patriarch has beer. exhaustively treated in S.A. Temovskii, Issledovanie o podchinenii Kievskoi metropolii Moskovskomu patriarkhatu (Kiev, 1912). The church in the eighteenth century :.s treated in I. Chisbvich, Ocherki istorzi' zapadno-russkoi tserkvz~ 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1882-84), voi. 2; K. Kharlampovich, Malorossiiskoe vliianie na ve!ikorusskuiu tserkovnuiu zhizn'(Kazan', 1914); Vlasovs'kyi, Narys, vo1. 3, 5-30. 15. See •:J.P. Tolochko, "Mizl-. Russiu i Pol'shcheiu: Ukrains'ka istoriohrafiia XVII st. v katehJriiakh pohranychnosti." Paper prese'.l.ted at the conference "Peoples, Nations, Identities: Ukrainian-Russian Encounter," Koln University, 23-25 June 1994. 16. The scholarly literatare :m the Sinopsis is examined in the introduction to Hans Rothe, ed., Sinopsis, Kiev 1681: Facsimile mit ezner Einleitung (Cobgr.e, 1983). Of particu:a note are S.I. Masbv, "K istorii izdanii kievskogo Sinopsisa," in Stat'ipo slavianskoi filologii i russkoi slovesnostZ:. Sobranie statei v chest' akademika A.l Sobolevskogo (Leningrad, 1928), 341-48; I.P. Eremin, "K istorii ooshchestvennoi mysli na Ukraine vtoroi poloviny XVII v.," Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury (hereafter TODRL). vol. X (1954), 212-22; and S.L. Peshtich, "Sinopsis kak istoricheskoe p:::-oizvec:.enie," TODRL, vol. XV (1958),284-98. An interesting recent addition to the literature is Gianfranco Giraudo, '"Russkoe' :1astoiashchee i proshedshee v tvorchestve Innokentiia Gizelia," Medievalia Ucraznica: Menta!'mst' ta zstoriia idei (Kiev, l992), 1: 92-103. 17. Hans Rothe, ed., Synopszs, Kiev 1681, 149-51. T:1e author continues to use terms "::-usskie" and "Rossiia" to describe both Vladi::nir-Moscow and Ukrainian lands frJm the ~hi::-teenth to the f:fteenth century (pp. 328, 335, 349, 351, 354), and his "?ravos:avnorossiiskii narod" designates both 0krainians and Muscovites under Aleksei Iv1ikhailovich (pp. 278, 364-5). I 20 18. For the first ·J.se of the term "gost:da:.-sno :?.c.skoe," see ibid., :!.67. Vladimir is called "Velikii Sa:noderzhets Rossiiskii" (p. 216). 19. Ibid., 208. 20. Ibid., 353. 21. Ibid., 360. 22. Ibid., 364. 23. See Feodosii Sofonovych, Khronika z litopystsiv starodavnikh, ed. by Iu.l~. M ytsyk and V.M. Kravchenko (Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1992), 231,255 and Frank E. Sysp, "The Cultural, Sxial, and Political C:mtext of Ukrainian History Writing, 1620- 1690," 306. 24. See Harvey Goldblatt, "Orthodox Slavic Heritage and National Consciousness: Aspects of the East Slavic and South Slavic National Revivals," Concepts if Nationhood in Early Modern Eastern Europe (Harvard Ukrainian Studies, voi. 10, no. 3/ 4 [December 1986]): 337-38. 25. H arvey Goldolatt, "Orthodox Slavic Heritage and National Consciouscess," 342; Bohdan Strumins'kyj, "The Language Question in the Ukrainian Lands ·.Jefore the Nineteenth Cencury," in Aspects ifthe Slavic Language Question, vol. II, ec:. Riccardo Picchio and Haney Goldblatt (New Haven, 1984), 13-14. 26. David A. Fri:::<, Meletij Smotryc'kt;/ 238. 27. The ever-expanding contractual relationship between the Cossacks acd the king of Poland :.s very well traced in volumes 7 and 8 of MykhaJo Hrushevs'~yi' s lstoriia Ukrainy-Rusy; the Treaty of Zboriv is discussed in vol. 8, pt. 3, 193-288. 28. ?or informatbn on the Pereiaslav Agreement, see Vossoedinenie Ukrainy s Rossiet> dokumenty i materialy v 3-kh tomakh, vol. 3 (Moscow, 1954); Akty otnosiashchiesia k istorii Iugo-ZapadnoiRosszi; 15 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1861-1892), vol. 10; and John Basarab's Pereiaslav 1654: A Historiographical Study (Edmonton, 1982). The articles of the agreement are analyzed in A. Iakovliv, Ukrains'ko-moskovs'ld dohovory v XVll-XVIII vikakh, Pratsi Ukrains'koho naukovoho instytutu, vol. 19 (Warsaw, 1934). 29. The conflicting Ukrainian and Muscovite interpretations of the Pereiaslav Agreement are dealt with in B.E. N ol' de, Ocherki russkogo gosudarstvennogo prava (St. Petersburg, 1911). The section dealing w ith Ukraine has been translated into English: "Essays in Russian State Law," Annals ifthe Ukrainian Academy ifArts and Sciences in the United States, 1988, no. 3 (Winter-Spring): 873-903. 30. For a more detailed discussion of the Little Ru ssian concept, see Zenon E. Kohut, "The Development of a Little Russian Identity and Ukrainian Nationbuiiding," Concepts ifNationhood in Early Modern Eastern Europe (Harvard Ukrainian Studies 10, no. 3/4 [December 1986]): 559-76. 31. The transformation of the term "Rus"' into "Rossiia" and then "Malorossiia" is best summarized in M.A. Maksirnovich, "Ob upotrebleni: nazvanii Rossiia i Malorossiia v Zapadnoi Rusi/' in Sobranie sochineniz; 2 vols. (Kiev, 1877), vol. 2: 307- 11. See also the discussion of the terms "Rus"' and "Little Russia" by Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi, "Velyka, Mala i Bila Rus','' Ukrains'kyi istorychnyi zhurnal, 1991, no. 2: 77-85 (originally published in Ukraina, 1917, no. 1-2: 7-19); and A. Solov'ev, 21 "Velika:.ia, Malaia i Belaia Rus'," Voprosy istorit~ 1947, no. 7: 24-38. 32. M. Erushevs'kyi, "Some Reflections on Ukrainian Historiograpny of the XVIII Century," in The Eyewitness Chronicle, Harvard Series ir. Ukrai..Liar. Stucies, vol. 7, Dt. 1 (Muni:::h, ~972), 12. - 33. Hraoianka vras published under the title Deistviia prezel'noi i of nacha!a po!iakov krvavshoi nebuva!oi brani Bogdana Khme!nitskogo ... Roku 1710 (Kiev, 1854); and Velych;_o uncle:- the title Letopis' sobytli v Iugo-Zapadnoi Rossii v XVII veke. Sosfavtl Samozl Ve!ichko byvshii kantse!iarist Voiska Zaporozhskogo, 1720 (Kiev), vol. 1 (1848), vol. 2 (1851), vol. 3 (1885), vol. 4 (1864). My references are to the facs:mile edition of Eryhorii Hrabianka, The Great War of Bohdan Xme!'nyc'kyj (The Harvard Lzbrary of Early Ukrainian Literature, Texts, vol. 9) (Cambridge, MA, 1990) and Valerii Shevchuk' s translation of Velychko in Samiilo Velychko, Ltfopys, 2 vcls. (Kiev, 1991 ). 34. See, for exa:nple, "A tsia zemlia-predkovichna vitchyzna nasha, iaka siiaie pravdeshnim i neskhytnym blahochestiam vid sviatoho i :-avnoapostol'noho k:1iazia Vo:odymyra Kyivs'koho, shcho prosvi7V Rus' kh:eshchenniam." (VelyclL 43. The influence of these Ukrainian c~erics on Muscovite church life is the subject of K. Kharlampovich' s Malorossiskoe vliianie na velikorusskuiu tserkovnuiu zhizn ' (~azan', 1914). 44. On the conflict be~een the Kievan and Muscovite clerics concerning transubstantiation, see Grigorii Mirkovich, 0 vremeni presushchestvlenHa sv. darov, spor, byvshei v Moskve, vo vtoroi polovini XVII-go veka (Vilnius, 1886), 31-82, afpendix I-XXVI. 45. Georges Florovsky, Ways ifRussian Theology, 2 vols. (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1979-87), esp. vol. 1: 59-60, 65, 85, 121, 131-2. For a scholarly critique af Florovsky, see Frank E. Sysyn, "Peter Mohyla and the Kiev Academy in Recent Western Works: Divergent Views on Seventeenth-Century Ukrainian Culture," The Kiev Mohyla Academy (Harvard Ukrainian Studies 8, no. 1/2 Oune 1984): 160-70; Francis J. Thomson, "Peter Mogila's Ecclesiastical Reforms and the Ukrainian Contribution to Russian Culture. A Critique of Georges Florovsky's Theory of the Pseudomorphosis if Orthodoxy," Belgian Contributions to the 11th International Congress of Slavists, Bratislava, 30 August-8 September 1993 (Slavica Gandensia 20 (1993)), 67-119. 46. Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetzkoy, The Legacy if Genghis Khan and Other Essays on Russia's Identify, ed. and with a postscript by Anatoly Liberman. Preface by Viacheslav V. :vanov (Ann Arbor, M:: Slavic Publications, 1991), 245--68; ::Jrnitrii S. Likhachev, Rif!ections on Russia, trans. by Christina Sever, ed. by Nikolai N . Petro (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991), 74-5 (Likhachev asserts that Russia and Ukraine for centuries "have formed not only a political, but also a culturally dualistic unity"). 47. See Marc Ra2ff, "The Enlightenment in Russia and Russian Thought in the EnlightenmePt," in John G. Garrard, ed., The Eighteenth Century in Russia (Oxford, 1973), 25-47, here 25 and Donald W. Treadgold, The West in Russia and China. Vol.l: Russ:a 1472-1917 (Cambridge, 1973), 115. 48. Max J. Okenfuss, The Rise andFall ifLatin Humanism in Early-Modern Russia: Pagan Authors, Ukrainians, and the Resilency ofMuscovy (Leiden: E.J.Bri~l, 1995), 70, 57. 49. Ibid., 109. 50. See V.I. Syro!Xliatnikov, "Regu!iarnoe gosudarstvo" Petra Pervogo i ego zdeologiia (Moscow, 1943); Marc Raeff, The Well-Ordaed Police State: Social and Institutional Change through Law in the Germanies and Russia, 1600-1800(New Haven, i983). 23 51. V.V. Vinogradov, Ocherki po istori;i russkogo literaturnogo iazyka XVII-XIX vv. (~eider., :949), 72-84. 52. A. Ia:Kovjv, Ukrains'ko-moskovs'ki dohovory v XVII-XVIII vikakh (Warsaw, :;..934). 53. This expression was used i>y Catherine in 1765 in her instructions :o the newly appointed Governor-General and President of tlle Little Russ:an ~ollege, Count Petr Rt:::miarJse~/. The ir.structions were published in Sbormk Imperatorskogo russkogo istoricheskogo obshchestva, vol. 7 (1871), 376-91. 54. The provisions of the charter are discussed at length in Robert E. Jones, The Emancipation of the Russian Nobtlity, 1762-1785 (Princeton, NJ, 1973), 272-99. 55. The ~Jkrain:an gentry's claims are outlined in a 1784 preliminary draft cf the charter. :5or a good summary of these, see D. Miller, "Ocherki iz istorii i iuridicheskogo byta staroi Malorossii. Prevrashchenie kozatskoi starshiny v dvorianstvo," Kievskaia stan"na, no. 2 (1897), 194-96. A detailed listing is to be found in the 1786law code: N. Vasiienko, ed., Ekstrakt iz ukazov instruktsii i uchrezhdemi s razdeleniem po materia/am na deviatnadtsat' chastei[ Materialy dlia istoriiekonomicheskogo, iuridicheskogo iobshchestvennogo byta Staroi Malorossit~ vol. 2] (Chernihiv, 1902), 216-31. 56. For the 1775 Basic Statute for the Administration of the Provinces o£ the Russian Empire, see PSZ, no. 14,392 (7 November 1775), 20: 229-304. 57. For Catherine's decree forbidding the movement of Ukrainiar_ peasan:s and extending tl:e p8ll tax to Ukraine, see PSZ, no. 15,724 (3 May 1783), 21: 908. 58. Described in "Dnevnik Akima Semenovicha Sulimy," Russkii biograficheskii slovar: vol. 20 (Suvorova-Tkachev), 141-42. 59. Vasylenko enumerates the local legal practices retained with t~