Ab Imperio, 4/2001

Mark von HAGEN Academy of Sciences. Dr. Miller has taught extensively in the Cen- А. И. Миллер. “Украинский tral European University in Buda- вопрос” в политике властей и pest, where he has helped shape русском общественном мнении future generations of Russian, (вторая половина XIX в.). СПб.: Ukrainian, and other Eurasian histo- Алетейя, 2000. rians. He was a participant in the first post-Soviet meetings of Ukrainian and Russian historians with their European and North Alexei Miller is representative American counterparts to explore of a new type of Russian interna- some of the long suppressed and tional scholar who is rewriting the contentious issues in Russian- history of Eastern Europe and Eura- Ukrainian historical relations; he sia. Trained as a specialist in the then undertook the first Russian history of the Austro-Hungarian conference (under Russian Acad- Empire in the Soviet Academy of emy of Sciences sponsorship) on Sciences’ Institute of Balkan and these topics in Moscow and has Slavic Studies. This institution, maintained his Ukrainian contacts though moderately reformed, has and research interests in the broader survived the transition to post- contexts of Austro-Hungarian his- Soviet conditions with some new tory and Euro-American historiog- research agendas and intellectual raphy more generally. (As a further and political allies, which was sign of the internationalization of among the reasons why in 1999 historical scholarship on the Rus- Miller changed his affiliation for sian Empire, this work was sup- the Institute of Scientific Informa- ported by the German Alexander- tion in Humanities of Russian von-Humboldt Foundation.)

436 Ab Imperio, 4/2001

And now this pioneering work American historians (David Saun- on the Ukrainian question in Rus- ders and Daniel Beauvois particu- sian imperial policy and its impor- larly) who have examined the issues tance for the imperial intelligentsia, from the published and some archi- especially those of its leading ac- val sources. But the censorship re- tivists in St. Petersburg, Moscow, straints on Soviet historians, which Kiev, and provincial Ukrain- extended of course to their non- ian/Little Russian cities. This book Soviet colleagues, precluded the is intellectually and politically cou- kind of study of bureaucratic poli- rageous because of the new possi- tics and intellectual biography that bilities and fears that overshadow is at the core of Miller’s revisionist the working out of a new post- work. Soviet Russian-Ukrainian set of re- Miller sets the lationships. It is proving difficult in the context of modernizing and for Russian elites to get used to an occasionally (and reluctantly) na- independent Ukrainian state; and it tionalizing imperial states (here is proving at least as difficult for Andreas Kappeler’s multiperspecti- contemporary Ukrainian elites to val history paved the way for a new forge a modern set of national iden- appreciation of the Russian Em- tities that both acknowledges the pire’s “imperial,” that is multieth- deep and long ties with Russians nic, dimensions), but he has also and their culture, but also positions been an important translator for in a broader European Russian-language scholars of the community. Miller’s book is the ideas and literatures of nationalism first by a mature Russian historian that social scientists have written in to take up seriously the place of the postwar twentieth century, es- Ukraine in the imperial political and pecially Benedict Anderson’s intellectual worlds. It is not the first “Imagined Communities.” Those book on the topic: Soviet/émigré literatures are tested against newly scholar Fedor Savchenko’s classic available library collections and ar- study of the bans on key aspects of chival materials in Moscow and St. Ukrainian intellectual life appeared Petersburg: the Archive of Foreign in 1930, but his work was off limits Policy of the Russian Empire in Soviet Ukraine and reprinted in (AVPRI), the State Archive of the Munich in 1970; Savchenko himself Russian Federation (GARF), the was arrested and shot during the Russian State Historical Archive Stalin terror. Miller also pays par- (RGIA), and the manuscript divi- ticular debt to Petr Zaionchkov- sions of the Russian State Library skii’s study of the Cyril and Meth- and Russian National Library. odius Society and to Euro- 437 Рецензии

The period that Miller treats, temporaries (and for many subse- primarily the reigns of Nicholas I, quent decades). Alexander II and Alexander III, was For historians of modern Russia, formative for modern Russian- this period marks the rise of rival Ukrainian relations: from a period Russian national and imperial of relatively positive relations myths, especially the idea of an among the Slavophiles and early East Slavic “Great Russian” nation Ukrainophiles, the relationship with its tripartite subdivision (Rus- turned to one of hostility and re- sian, Ukrainian, Belorussian sub- pression in a series of authoritative nations). Miller situates this myth in decrees and instructions to come an emerging consensus among re- from the imperial capital. Miller or- formist bureaucrats and public in- ganizes his study around the origins tellectuals in favor of an increas- of and reactions to the Valuev cir- ingly assimilationist politics; as- cular of 1863 and the Ems ukaz of similation was part of their vision of 1876 (both of which are reproduced remaking the Russian Empire that in their entirety as appendices to the we have come to know as the era of volume). Interior Minister P. A. the Great Reforms and that reserved Valuev ordered the censorship a preeminent role for Russian lan- committees to forbid the publication guage and culture in that remade of books in the “Little Russian” Empire. Among historians of except in belles-lettres (that Ukraine wherever they have writ- is all popular, educational and re- ten, the imperial period has suffered ligious literature); the Ems decree from relative lack of study when expanded the prohibitions to in- compared to the more “heroic” pe- clude the import of literature in that riods of the Hetmanate, the more “dialect” from abroad and to ban “foundational” period of Kyivan everything but the publication of Rus’ and Halychyna, and even the historical documents; the ukaz also revolutionary and Soviet periods provided for subsidies to an anti- (especially 1917, the Civil War, the Ukrainophile newspaper in Famine and World War II). Despite Habsburg Galicia and the exile of this relative neglect, this period two prominent Ukrainian activists. marks the rise of a Ukrainian na- For Miller the story is one of con- tional consciousness out of roman- frontation between three evolving ticism and in response to Polish and nation-building projects, the Rus- Russian agriculturalist utopias. sian, Polish and Ukrainian, that tar- Miller’s study presents the best geted the same population and picture yet of the interactions proved to be incompatible in the among imperial elites in the capital ways they were configured by con- and in Little Russia. But because 438 Ab Imperio, 4/2001

Miller is writing in the post-Soviet, ments challenged the integrity of post-colonial, and to some degree the Empire, Russian elites came to post-national era (despite important view the assertion of a separate countervailing trends precisely in Ukrainian identity (and, to a lesser the newly sovereign states of the degree, Belorussian identity) as a former Soviet bloc), his historiciza- challenge to their own notions of tion of the Russian reaction to the unity of the “Russian nation.” Ukrainian claims on identity and Miller also insists on distinguishing cultural and political autonomy also between the official nationalism of explores alternative explanations the autocracy and the nationalism of and alternative solutions that were articulate elites outside the state; imaginable at various stages in this though these two phenomena were brief but important period in Rus- closely related they followed sian-Ukrainian relations. somewhat autonomous paths of de- Following on Anderson, Mi- velopment. roslav Hroch, Antony Smith, and Miller traces the origins of others, Miller emphasizes the sec- Ukrainophilism to the French ondary, imitative character of the Revolution and Polish romanticism, nationalisms of Central and Eastern on the one hand, and to the imperial Europe, but also stresses the im- universities in Kiev and Khar’kov, portant differences between the na- on the other. The first program of tionalism of ruling nations (primar- modern Ukrainian nationalism was ily in western Europe and the articulated by the Cyril and Meth- Americas) and the official nation- odius Society and provoked a range alism of ruling dynasties. Anderson of responses among Russian and himself borrowed the concept of Little Russian writers. A part of “official nationalism” from the Rus- Russian opinion insisted that the sian Empire and Enlightenment was a dialect Minister Sergei Uvarov’s program and that the western region ought to of Orthodoxy, autocracy, and na- be thoroughly russified to bring tionality. But whereas Anderson fo- about the “natural” unity of the cused on the classical colonial (and large Russian nation; a second in- overseas) empires and their colo- fluential position (among Russians nies, Miller insists that the Russian- and some who considered them- Ukrainian relationship is more ap- selves Little Russians) shared the propriately compared with the An- goals of political unity of the Em- glo-Scottish or French-Provencal pire, but allowed for some measure than with the Anglo-African or of cultural autonomy for Ukrainians Franco-Asian dynamics. Whereas (Iurii Samarin is taken to be repre- other non-Russian national move- sentative of this second more multi- 439 Рецензии culturalist approach). The press doning their local patriotisms, dia- polemics of Ukrainian language and lects, and folklores (Mikhailo Mak- identity resulted in a harsh crack- symovich squared off against Mik- down on the Society, whose mem- hail Pogodin; one of the most im- bers were arrested and sent into ex- portant voices advocating the Rus- ile. Nicholas I and his advisors sian project was that of journalist early on identified the Society as Mikhail Katkov). With official ap- the result of Polish influence, espe- proval of a new journal, “,” cially from Polish émigré circles in the Ukrainian national movement Paris; the theme of Polish intrigue spread to hromadas across the thereafter became part of the arsenal southwest provinces and in the of the critics of the Ukrainian na- capitals. The polemics began to tional movement. Still, Miller ar- touch on increasingly sensitive is- gues that tsarist officials exercised sues of the boundaries and organ- relative restraint with the Ukrainian izational principles of the Russian intellectuals, largely motivated by a nation and were made more acri- faith that the Ukrainian cause might monious in the context of rising be coopted and out of fear of push- hostility and suspicions among Rus- ing the Ukrainians into closer em- sians toward the Polish national brace by the Poles. movement. After Nicholas’ death and the It was in this context that the accession of Alexander II to the Valuev circular had its immediate throne, the exiles were allowed to origins. War Minister Dmitrii Mili- return home and to the imperial utin set the bureaucratic machine in capital, which became the site of motion with instructions to the Kiev renewed Ukrainian national activ- General-Governor to do something ism. Miller credits A. Troinitskii, a about the hromada there, which had censorship official responding to a been denounced most probably by Ukrainian-language publication, Polish landowners and Little Rus- with the first formulation by a bu- sian clergy. Though Katkov’s writ- reaucrat of an explicitly assimila- ings were also influential, Miller tionist policy in 1861, a formulation argues that the correspondence which, incidentally, made reference among officials in St. Petersburg, to the examples of England’s and Kiev, and Khar’kov were the cru- France’s nation-building projects. cial factors, as was the 1863 Polish In the press of the second half of the uprising. Instead, when Valuev is- 1850s, Ukrainophiles defended their sued his circular-ban on Ukrainian- positions against Russians and Lit- language materials, it was more a tle Russians, who saw unity with recognition of the weakness of any Russia as a virtue while not aban- more positive program of Russian 440 Ab Imperio, 4/2001 nation-building than out of any po- fective. Miller reminds us that the sition of strength; moreover, Miller first real efforts to expand rural makes a persuasive case that Val- education (and literacy) came a full uev and his subordinates viewed the three decades after the emancipa- repressive measures as temporary tion of the serfs. for the duration of the Polish insur- The beginning of the 1870s saw rection. And Miller identifies strong another revival in the press and or- currents of opposition to the circu- ganizational activities (Kiev branch lar within the bureaucracy, most of the Imperial Geographic Society notably from the Minister of En- and a Kiev History Society) of the lightenment, A. V. Golovnin, who Ukrainophiles, this time in Kiev and tried to repeal the ban and even co- with the support of the new Kiev ordinated his actions to some de- Governor-General A. M. Dondu- gree with those of the Ukraino- kov-Korsakov and many represen- philes themselves. Both the splits tatives of the Little Russian gentry within the bureaucracy and the fears (Miller emphasizes that these fig- of driving the Ukrainophiles into ures did not support any program of the arms of the Poles led to milder linguistic or political separatism, sanctions against the activists but hoped to influence some of the (closing down “Osnova” and the most “reasonable” Ukrainophiles by Kiev hromada, arrest and exile of a giving them official fora for their couple dozen persons) than were ideas; Miller sees Dondukov- applied against other contemporary Korsakov as the leading advocate trouble-makers like the Omsk sepa- for an Anglo-Scottish model of ne- ratists (who were tried in 1865 and gotiating integration and auton- sentenced to prison and hard labor). omy). Myhailo Drahomanov for- One surprising experiment that was mulated a new argument against as- adopted was the recruitment of sev- similation of the Ukrainians into the eral of the leading Ukrainian activ- Russian nation--that Russia’s ene- ists for administrative positions in mies, the Poles and Germany, the Polish Kingdom, most notably would benefit most from the al- P. A. Kulish. Despite the increasing ienation of Ukrainians by further recognition by imperial officials of repressive measures against their the need to inculcate a more pro- culture. This conflict eventually found sense of Russianness among blew up in 1875 with Drahoma- the Empire’s population and an in- nov’s dismissal from university creasingly vociferous campaign in service, but Kiev authorities tried-- the press, government policy re- in vain--to shield the Geographic mained inconsistent, contradictory, and History Societies from broader poorly planned and, in the end, inef- campaigns of personal repressions 441 Рецензии and closing, despite shrill accusa- ing the 1880s when Russian mili- tions of separatism coming from tary circles began to view Austria- influential corners. The Ems ukaz Hungary (and Germany) as their summarized the measures to be most threatening future rivals. taken to combat this particular epi- Miller concludes that tsarist sode of Ukrainian opposition poli- authorities still looked on Galicia tics. But once again, almost as soon more as a recruiting ground for of- as the ukaz was accepted by Alex- ficials and Orthodox clergy for the ander II, it was contested by both Russian Empire than a place that the Minister of the Interior, A. E. might serve to reinforce Russian Timashev, and Grand Duke Kon- influence. After the crisis of stantin Nikolaevich, as well as re- authority that followed in the wake sisted on the ground in Kiev by the of the 1880 assassination attempt by governor-general and the curator of Russian revolutionary terrorists, the Kiev school district. And, once Senator A. A. Polovtsov was sent to again, the repressions were rela- Kiev and gathered information tively few and mild when compared about the Ukrainian national to analogous sentences for other movement, which continued to at- types of opposition. Still Miller ac- tract far less attention than its Polish knowledges that the 1870s were the counterpart. Several officials, in- most hostile period to date of cen- cluding now former governor- sorship of Ukrainian publications general Dondukov-Korsakov, rec- and forced the Ukrainian national ommended softening the repressive movement to relocate to Austria- aspects of the Ems ukaz, but the Hungary, where the Habsburg dy- working group that was appointed nasty had been persuaded to allow by the Emperor to address the much greater public participation in Ukrainian issues met only after Al- national politics than did their Ro- exander II’s assassination in a very manov counterparts across the bor- new climate under his son. Alexan- der. der III and his closest advisors on As to another potentially im- these matters, especially Konstantin portant provision of the Ems ukaz, Pobedonostsev and N. P. Ignat’ev, subsidies to the Galician organ of saw evidence everywhere of Polish- the pro-Russian (Russophile) party Jewish conspiracies and launched “Slovo,” they too proved ineffective new russification efforts that were in countering the Ukrainophile ac- far more aggressive than those tivities (Loris-Melikov ordered the contemplated by earlier officials subsidies halted during his brief and, in Miller’s opinion, were ulti- “dictatorship of the heart”), even mately counter-productive and inef- after the sums were increased dur- fective. The provisions of the Ems 442 Ab Imperio, 4/2001 ukaz remained in effect until the cal institutional, social, and intel- Revolution of 1905. lectual developments and are best One of Miller’s most important approached in a comparative and contributions in this meticulously international context. “Ukrainskii researched study is his identifying a vopros” is an original, solid contri- series of historical alternative paths bution to the history of the national that materialized ever so many question in eastern Europe and years within Russian official and elsewhere. public circles for a more tolerant approach to Ukrainian activists’ demands for recognition of their language and distinct history. Un- fortunately for Russian-Ukrainian relations, those voices were regu- larly quashed by the “traditionalists” (Valuev’s reliance Вим ван МЁЙРС* on aristocratic values supplemented later by Pobedonostsev’s faith in the clergy as nationalizing ele- Das Phänomen ments) and their impact constrained Lev S. Klejn, by the autocratic state and its po- der sowjetischen Archäologie. lice-bureaucratic mechanisms. Geschichte, Schulen, Protagonisten. Miller argues that the myth of the Aus dem Russischen von Dittmar Schorkowitz tripartite Russian nation with its (Frankfurt am Main: Little Russian sub-variant, a myth Peter Lang, 1997). Gesellschaften that lives on today in numerous in- und Staaten im Epochenwandel Bd. fluential circles, was a response to 6, Hrsg. Von Lawrence Krader, both assertions of a more autono- Krisztina Mänicke-Gyöngyösi, mous Ukrainian nation and to rival Klaus Meyer und Dittmar Polish claims that saw Ukrainians Schorkowitz. 411 Seiten, zahlr. as integral parts of the kresy. Abb. Though Russia and Ukraine today exist as independent states and their Любой начинающий археолог relations are significantly trans- знает, что найденные при раскоп- formed from previous centuries, ках вещи не представляют почти Miller’s study reminds us that no никакой ценности, если не из- national projects are inevitably вестны место раскопок и слой в doomed to success (or failure, for , that matter) but must be explained * Перевод с немецкого К Левинсона as a complex confluence of histori- . . 443