No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2018
October 1819 was a key month in the history of relations between the Slavs. Alexander I spent the early part of it in Warsaw, drawing on the contitution of the Congress Kingdom of Poland and putting the finishing touches to his project for a pan-imperial constitutional charter. In Tsarskoe Selo the conservative historian N. M. Karamzin reacted with horror to the tsar's concurrent plan for the revivification of Poland. On 9 October, in the hope of securing official support for his archaeological and ethnographic studies, the Pole Zorian Dolega Chodakowski arrived in St. Petersburg. His first publication in Russian, which appeared later in the month in Moscow, argued that before the coming of Christianity the Slavonic peoples were ‘everywhere and in all respects’ identical. Behind these three events — Alexander's charter, Karamzin's sense of outrage, Chodakowski's arrival — lay three approaches to the bringing-together of the Slavs: the federal, the Russifying, and what I shall call the cultural. In various hands, these approaches were long-lived in pre-revolutionary Russia. Chodakowski's significance lay in the impetus he gave to the third of them.
1. Georges Vernadsky, La charte constitutionelle de l'empire russe de l'an 1820, (Paris, 1933), p. 75; see also N. V. Minaeva, ‘Pravitelstvennyi konstitusionalizm v Rossii posle 1812g.‘, Voprosy istorii, 7 (1981), pp. 32-41.Google Scholar
2. J. L. Black, ‘Nicholas Karamzin's “Opinion” on Poland: 1819‘, The International History Review, 1 (1981), pp. 1-19.Google Scholar
3. L. A. Malash-Aksamitova, ‘Dolenga-Khodakovskii (Adam Charnotskii) i ego nasledie’, Lud, LI:1 (1967 for 1966), p. 132.Google Scholar
4. See the modern edition of this essay in Z. D. Chodakowski, O Slawianszyczyznie przed Chrzescijanstwem ora inne pisma i listy, ed. J. Maslanka, (Warsaw, 1967) (hereafter Maslanka, O Slawianszczyznie), p. 49.Google Scholar
5. W. H. Zawadzki, ‘Adam Czartoryski: An Advocate of Slavonic Solidarity at the Congress of Vienna’, Oxford Slavonic Papers, new series, 10 (1977), pp. 73-97.Google Scholar
6. A. V. Predtechenskii, Ocherki obshchestvenno-politicheskoi istorii Rossii v pervoi chetverti XIX veka, (Moscow-Leningrad, 1957), pp. 398-406.Google Scholar
7. M. Raeff, The Decembrist Movement, (Englewood Cliffs, 1966), pp. 104, 160.Google Scholar
8. G. Luciani, Le livre de la genese du peuple ukrainien, (Paris, 1956); P. A. Zaionchkovskii, Kirillo-Medfodievskoe obshchestvo (1846-47) (Moscow, 1959).Google Scholar
9. On Ukrainian federalism see I. L. Rudnytsky, ‘The Fourth Universal and Its Ideological Antecedents’, in Taras Hunczak, ed. The Ukraine 1917-1921: A Study in Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), pp. 186-219. Drahomanov discussed the changing attitudes of contemporary Russian revolutionaries in his book Istoricheskaia Polsha i veliko-russkaia demokratiia, (Geneva, 1882).Google Scholar
10. S. F. Starr, Decentralization and Self-Government in Russia, 1830-1870 (Princeton, 1972), especially p. 354.Google Scholar
11. Sbornik imperatorskogo russkogo istoricheskogo obshchestva, vol. 7 (St Petersburg, 1871), p. 348.Google Scholar
12. By, for example, Russifying Polish educational establishments, dispersing their libraries, and requiring Polish students to study in Russia: Tsentralnyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv SSSR (hereafter TsGIA), fond 733, opis 66, dela 2-3 (on the russification of schools in Belorussia in the 1820s), dd. 151-2 (on the transfer of books from Vilna to the universities of Kiev and Kharkiv in the 1830s), and op. 87, d. 341 (on the despatch of students from Poland to Russia between 1835 and 1840). By striking at Polish education Nicholas reduced the likelihood of the sort of Russo-Polish cultural exchange which occurred in 1819.Google Scholar
13. R. Solchanyk, ‘Lex Jusephovicia 1876‘, Suchasnist, 5 (1976), pp. 36-68.Google Scholar
14. Black, op. cit. (fn. 2), pp. 1-2.Google Scholar
15. TsGIA, 733/69/1, listy 1, 27-8: Czartoryski to P. V. Zavadovskii, 17 September 1804, and Zavadovskii to Czartoryski, 13 November 1805.Google Scholar
16. TsGIA, 733/86/226, ll. 19-23: a paper by A. K. Razumovskii entitled “O neradenii v guberniiakh ot Polshi priobretennykh i ostzeiskikh o rossiiskom iazyke, i o merakh protiv sego neradeniia” (1811).Google Scholar
17. Black, op. cit., pp. 2-3.Google Scholar
18. Reprinted in Maslanka, O Slawianszczyznie, p. 301.Google Scholar
19. See, for example, the obituary in Bibliograficheskie listy, 38, (13 March 1826), cols. 562-4.Google Scholar
20. A. N. Pypin “Zoriian Dolenga-Khodakovskii: Biograficheskii ocherk,” Vestnik Evropy, 6 (1886), pp. 305-57. The remainder of this paragraph is based on Chodakowski's false autobiography and Pypin's article, updated where necessary by the introduction to Maslanka, O Slawianszczyznie (pp. 5-14). Literature on Chodakowski to 1965 is listed in J. Maslanka, Zorian Dolega Chodakowski: jego miejsce w kulturze polskiej i wplyw na polskie pismiennictwo romantyczne (Wroclaw-Warsaw-Cracow, 1965), pp. 148-9 (hereafter Maslanka, Chodakowski).Google Scholar
21. Chodakowski's movements in 1813-14 remain obscure; see Maslanka, O Slawianszczyznie, p. 7, and Chodakowski, pp. 32-3.Google Scholar
22. All reprinted in Maslanka, O Slawianszczyznie: the essay of 1818 which gives the volume its title (pp. 19-31); “Razyskaniia kasatelno russkoi istorii,” first published in Vestnik Evropy in October 1819 (pp. 49-59); and “Proekt uchenogo puteshestviia po Rossii, dlia obiasneniia drevnei slavianskoi istorii,” first published in Syn otechestva in 1820 (pp. 75-100).Google Scholar
23. By Malash-Aksamitova, op. cit. (fn. 3).Google Scholar
24. Nikolai Polevoi: Materialy po istorii russkoi literatury i zhurnalistiki tridtsatykh godov, ed. V. N. Orlov (Leningrad, n. d.), pp. 137-40.Google Scholar
25. Rukopisnyi otdel Instituta russkoi literatury AN SSSR (hereafter IRLI), f. 154, edinitsa khraneniia 55, 11. 10-11.Google Scholar
26. F. Ia. Priima, “Zoriian Dolenga-Khodakovskii i ego nabliudeniia nad ‘Slovom o polku Igoreve’,” Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury, 8, (1951), p. 71.Google Scholar
27. Maslanka, Chodakowski. Google Scholar
28. Maslanka, O Slawianszczyznie. Maslanka listed in Chodakowski, p. 146, Chodakowski's posthumously-published essays which were not reprinted in O Slawianszczyznie. He admitted (Chodakowski, p. 145) that his Soviet archival references might not be complete. Many more were supplied by R. W. Woloszynski, Polsko-rosyjskie zwiazki w naukach spolecznych 1801-1830 (Warsaw, 1974), pp. 302-18 (especially p. 313, fn. 30). So far as I am aware, no one has noticed Chodakowski's letter to A. R. Tomilov, cited below.Google Scholar
29. Ukrainski narodni pisni v zapysakh Zoriana Dolenhy-Khodakovskoho, ed. O. I. Dei and L. A. Malash, (Kiev, 1974).Google Scholar
30. Ibid., p. 51.Google Scholar
31. P. S. Wandycz, The Lands of Partitioned Poland, 1795-1918, (Seattle and London, 1974), p. 95.Google Scholar
32. P. Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe (London, 1978), p. 9.Google Scholar
33. P. Brock, “Z. D. Chodadowski and the Discovery of Folklife: A Chapter in the History of Polish Nationalism,” The Polish Review, XXI: 1-2 (1976), pp. 3-21.Google Scholar
34. Slavianovedenie v dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii: biobibliograficheskii slovar, ed. V. A. Diakov et al. (Moscow, 1979), pp. 357-8.Google Scholar
35. David B. Saunders, “Historians and Concepts of Nationality in Early Nineteenth-Century Russia,” Slavonic and East European Review, LX: 1 (1982), pp. 44-62.Google Scholar
36. Pypin, op. cit. (fn. 20), pp. 306, 313-14, 338; V. Domanytskyi, “Pioner ukrainskoi etnohrafii (Zorian Dolenha-Khodakowskyi)” Zapysky naukovoho tovarystva im. Shevchenka, vol. 65 (1905), first pagination, pp. 27-30.Google Scholar
37. Maslanka, Chodakowski, pp. 32-51.Google Scholar
38. V. A. Iuzvenko, Ukrainska narodna poetichna tvorchist u polskii folklorystytsi XIX st. (Kiev, 1961), p. 14.Google Scholar
39. Maslanka, O Slawianszczyznie, p. 6, fn. 6.Google Scholar
40. Domanytskyi, op. cit. (fn. 36), p. 29.Google Scholar
41. On this debate see, for example, the review by Angus Walker of P. K. Christoff's The Third Heart in Slavonic and East European Review, L:1(1972), p. 138.Google Scholar
42. Maslanka, O Slawianszczyznie, p. 301.Google Scholar
43. Ibid., p. 7; Malash-Aksamitova, op. cit. (fn. 3), p. 130.Google Scholar
44. D. Beauvois, “Ecole et societe en Ukraine occidentale (1800-1825),” Revue du nord, LVII: 225 (1975), pp. 173-84.Google Scholar
45. In 1814 the Kiev director wrote to the Minister of Education to say that, unless special measures were set in train, it would take twenty years to extirpate the “harmful thoughts” implanted by Czacki: TsGIA 733/69/1, 1. 191.Google Scholar
46. Beavois, op. cit., p. 178.Google Scholar
47. T. Czacki, O litewskich i polskich prawach, 2 vols. (Warsaw, 1800-1); I. N. Loboiko, a teacher at Vilna university, reported to N. P. Rumiantsev in May 1825 that Czacki's work was selling locally for twenty silver rubles: Tsentralnyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov (hereafter TsGADA), f. 17, ed. khr. 61 dopolnitelnaia, 11. 76-7.Google Scholar
48. TsGIA 733/62/185, 11. 16-17 (a Russian translation made in 1810). Maslanka (Chodakowski, pp. 11-12) refers to two anonymous Polish articles of 1805 similar to that of Czacki, but assigns them to Jan Sniadecki and Lubicz Czerwinski. I have not been able to ascertain whether one of them was in fact Czacki's paper.Google Scholar
49. See the summary at the end of Chodakowski's proposal (Maslanka, O Slawianszczyznie, pp. 99-100).Google Scholar
50. TsGIA 733/62/185, 1. 22, A. K. Razumovskii to Czacki, 13 November 1810. Women had been drowned in the western Ukraine in the attempt to discover whether they were witches.Google Scholar
51. Maslanka, O Slawianszczyznie, p. 165, a letter of 1805.Google Scholar
52. Rumiantsev's secretary, the Polonophile V. G. Anastasevich, knew Czacki, visited Krzemieniec in 1810, and in 1816 brought “certain appeals” of Chodakowski to Rumiantsev's attention: Woloszynski, op. cit. (fn. 28), pp. 304, 318, 321. Anastasevich received these appeals not from Chodakowski himself, but from a mutual acquaintance in Krzemieniec; perhaps he passed them on because he recognized the inspiration of Czacki.Google Scholar
53. Some of Chodakowski's ideas, however, were common to many contemporaries. His correspondent Loboiko, for example, expressed an interest in the study of place-names, one of Chodakowski's principal concerns, two years before they met: Gosudarstvennaia biblioteka im. Lenina, otdel rukopisei, f. 255, karton 12, ed. khr. 34, 11. 2-3 (from a study-plan submitted by Loboiko to N. P. Rumiantsev in 1817).Google Scholar
54. The estate from which he promulgated his 1805 paper had been confiscated by the Russians in 1794 because he was suspected of complicity in the Polish uprising of that year. Czacki got the estate back in 1796, but in 1807 was still seeking compensation for his losses: TsGIA 733/62/18, 11. 60-88.Google Scholar
55. Brock, op. cit. (fn. 33), p. 21.Google Scholar
56. Wandycz, op. cit. (fn. 31), p. 102.Google Scholar
57. Maslanka, O Slawianszczyznie, p. 49.Google Scholar
58. Gosudarstvennaia publichnaia biblioteka, otdel rukopisei (hereafter GPB), f. 440, op. 1, ed. khr. 4, 1. 15, Chodakowski to Loboiko, Moscow, January 1823.Google Scholar
59. Ibid., 1. 11, Chodakowski to Loboiko, Moscow, 23 November 1822.Google Scholar
60. R. F. Iusufov, Russkii romantizm nachala XIX veka i natsionalnye kultury, (Moscow, 1970), shows that the Russians were interested in non-Slavs too.Google Scholar
61. D. Wilson, The Life and Times of Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic 1787-1864, (Oxford, 1970), pp. 131-49.Google Scholar
62. E. M. Kosachevskaia, M. A. Balugianskii i peterburgskii universitet pervoi chetverti XIX veka, (Leningrad, 1971), p. 90.Google Scholar
63. Drevnie rossiiskie stikhotvoreniia, sobrannye Kirsheiu Danilovym, ed. A. P. Evgeneva and B. N. Putilov, (Moscow-Leningrad, 1958), p. 516.Google Scholar
64. A Pavlovskii, Grammatika malorossiiskogo narechiia, (St Petersburg, 1818); N. A. Tsertelev, Opyt sobraniia starinnykh malorossiiskikh pesnei, (St Petersburg, 1819).Google Scholar
65. A. A. Shakhovskh, Komedii, stikhotvoreniia, Leningrad, 1961, p. 818; F. N. Glinka, Zinovii Bogdan Khmelnitskii ili osvobozhdennaia Maiorossiia, (St Petersburg, 1819).Google Scholar
66. His paper of 1819, “Razyskaniia kasatelno russkoi istorii” (Maslanka, O Slawianszczyznie, pp. 49-59), was a critique of the early part of Karamzin's work.Google Scholar
67. See N. Trubitsyn, “O narodnom poezii v obshchestvennom i literaturnom obikhode pervoi treti XIX veka,” Zapiski istoriko-filologicheskogo fakulteta imperatorskogo S.-Peterburgskogo universiteta, vol. 60 (1912), passim.Google Scholar
68. Ostafevskii arkhiv kniazei Viazemskikh, ed. V. I. Saitov and P. N. Sheffer, 5 vols. (St Petersburg, 1899-1913), vol. 1, p. 357.Google Scholar
69. Frank W. Thackeray, Antecedents of Revolution: Alexander I and the Polish Kingdom, 1815-1825, (Boulder, Colorado, 1980), pp. 58-9; G. Struve, “Alexander Turgenev, Ambassador of Russian Culture in Partibus Infidelium,” Slavic Review, 29 (1970), pp. 444-59.Google Scholar
70. See Saunders, op. cit. (fn. 35), pp. 61-2.Google Scholar
71. The standard work on the early history of Slavonic studies in Russia remains A. A. Kochubinskii, Admiral Shishkov i kantsler gr. Rumiantsev: nachalnye gody russkogo slavianovedeniia, (Odessa, 1887-8); on the Rumiantsev circle see also V. P. Kozlov, Kolumby rossiiskikh drevnoslei, (Moscow, 1981).Google Scholar
72. October 1819 to June 1820; in March 1820 Chodakowski wrote to the Minister of Education saying that he was in ‘extreme need’ (Maslanka, O Slawianszczyznie, p. 294).Google Scholar
73. Russkii arkhiv, vol. 2, (1889), p. 354, Bolkhovitinov to Anastasevich, 21 June 1820.Google Scholar
74. He regretted the tsar's departure abroad in August 1822, because it slowed down official decision-making (Maslanka, O Slawianszczyznie, p. 363).Google Scholar
75. TsGIA, 733/2/1, 1. 185, Karamzin to the Minister of Education 23 December 1822, expressing no views on Chodakowski's progress apart from agreement with the (hostile) opinion of the Ministry's assessor.Google Scholar
76. GPB, 440/1/4, 11. 14-15, Chodakowski to Loboiko, Moscow, 10 May 1823.Google Scholar
77. TsGIA, 733/2/1, 11. 141-4, an assessment of 23 May 1821.Google Scholar
78. The friend, I. S. Orlai, was unhelpful: 1. S. Sventsitskii, Materialy po istorii vozrozhdeniia Karpatskoi Rusi, vol. 1 (Lvov, 1905), p. 29.Google Scholar
79. GPB, 440/1/4, 11. 14, 20, Chodakowski to Loboiko, Moscow, 10 May and 11 January 1823.Google Scholar
80. TsGIA, 1086/1/214, Chodakowski to Tomilov, Moscow, 13 March 1822 (a hitherto unnoticed letter).Google Scholar
81. Ibid., 1. 2.Google Scholar
82. IRLI, 154/55, 1. 11 (Loboiko's memoirs).Google Scholar
83. GPB, 588/4/82, 11. 2-3.Google Scholar
84. TsGIA 735/1/80, in which Shishkov saved Bibliograficheskie listy from the criticism of M. Magnitskii; according to Diakov (fn. 34), p. 182, Magnitskii succeeded in getting the journal closed in 1826.Google Scholar
85. TsGIA, 733/2/222, 1. 15.Google Scholar
86. GPB, 588/4/78, 1. 7, Loboiko to Chodakowski, Vilna, 8 December 1822.Google Scholar
87. TsGADA, 17/61 dop., 11. 103-4, Loboiko to N. P. Rumiantsev, Vilna, 3 November 1824. Loboiko's enthusiasm was well-founded, for Belorusskii arkhiv occupies first place in N. N. Ulashchik's Ocherki po arkheografii i istochnikovedeniiu istorii Belorussii feodalnogo perioda, (Moscow, 1973), pp. 16-28.Google Scholar
88. GPB, 588/4/78, 11. 11-12, Loboiko to Chodakowski, Vilna, 12 October 1823.Google Scholar
89. Chodakowski's greatest critic amongst members of the Rumiantsev circle was K. F. Kalaidovich, who indicted his theory of pre-Christian Slavonic settlements in Pisma k Alekseiu Fedorovichu Malinovskomu ob arkheologicheskikh issledovaniiakh v Riazanskoi gubernii, (Moscow, 1823), pp. 48-70.Google Scholar