Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:53:44.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ukraine and the Dialectics of Nation - Building

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Omeljan Pritsak  and
John S. Reshetar Jr.
Omeljan Pritsak
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 1963 , pp. 224 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For example, see the viewpoint of G. P. Fedotov as described by Florovsky, Georges in “The Problem of Old Russian Culture,” Slavic Review, XXI (March, 1962), 9.Google Scholar

2 In this context mention should be made of the cult of St. Clement, Pope of Rome, in Kiev. He was the patron of the Kiev Cathedral, the Tithe Church of the Virgin, built by Volodymyr the Great. In his honor there was compiled a book of miracles, (two known versions date from the twelfth century)., III (Kiev and Lviv, 1923), 105-9. When in 1147, as a result of political tension between Kiev and Byzantium, the question arose as to how to obtain a new metropolitan, the Bishop of Chernyhiv, Onufrii, offered an interesting solution. He proved that just as the patriarch of Constantinople in consecration employs the sacred relic of the hand of St. John, so in Kiev a metropolitan could be consecrated with the reliquary of Pope Clement. It is significant that when this method was approved by all six bishops of Southern Rus’ (the present Ukrainian territory) the Kiev Orthodox Metropolitan Klym Smoliatych Hypatian Chronicle, s.a. 1147) was consecrated by means of the pope's reliquary. The bishops of Northern Rus', under the leadership of Nifont (who effected the Novgorod separatism discussed elsewhere) refused to recognize the validity of this method.

3 V (Kiev, 1926), Part I, and the preface by D. Čiževsky in the Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S., III, No. 1 (1953), 485-87.

4 Indicative of Vyshensky's quaint and intolerant attitude is the following statement (1599-1600): (Moscow and Leningrad, 1955), p. 23.

Significantly, the language used by Vyshensky was far from being Church Slavonic; it was rather the Ukrainian language of that time. As a product of Humanism and the Reformation, philological studies emerged in the Ukraine of the late sixteenth century. Two of the most important works should be mentioned here: The Slavenorosskii (Church Slavonic-Ukrainian) dictionary by Pamvo Berynda (Kiev, 1627) and the first grammar ever written of the Church Slavonic language, by Meletius Smotrytsky (Eviu, 1619).

5 (New York, 1956) provides a discussion of the baroque in Ukrainian literature, pp. 248-317. A separate province of Ukrainian literature from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century consists of that written in Latin. For a brief characterization of this literature see ibid., pp. 318-20.

6 This problem is discussed at length in Eduard, Winter, Byzanz und Rom im Kampf um die Ukraine, 955-1939 (Leipzig, 1942).Google Scholar

7 The definition of “incomplete” nationhood as applied to eighteenth-century literature is discussed in op. cit., pp. 322-23.

8 After the annexation of Kiev by Lithuania the Grand Prince Olgerd re-established the Kiev metropolitanate in ca. 1354. However, until 1448 the Moscow and Kiev metropolitanates were often occupied by the same person, who was usually of Greek origin. From the Union of Brest (1596) until 1620 the Kiev metropolitanate was Uniat.

9 Two recent studies on the Synopsis are: , X (Moscow and Leningrad, 1954), 212-22, and ibid., XV (Moscow and Leningrad, 1958), 284-98. According to data cited by Peshtich the 1674 edition was not the original. There are indications that two other editions, of 1670 and 1672, existed, which unfortunately have not been investigated. Peshtich also demonstrated that the Synopsis, before being printed in Kiev, was subjected to Muscovite censorship. Not having the text of the original uncensored version, we are not in a position to determine what additions or deletions in the text resulted from censorship.

10 See Hrushevsky, , “The Traditional Scheme of ‘Russian’ History…,” Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S., II, No. 4 (1952), 355–64.Google Scholar

11 See W. Lipińiski, Z dziejów Ukrainy (Kiev, 1912) and also 1657-1659 (Vienna, 1920).

12 , Part HI, Vol. VI (Kiev, 1908), 332-37;, IX (Kiev, 1931), Part II, pp. 1392-97; X (Kiev, 1937), 64-69.

13 On Ukrainian political thought during the Cossack State see ., XIX (1928), 231-41.

14 Typical of this approach is B. , Vol. I, 1862, pp. 83-96. An interesting characterization and criticism of the so-called “conscious Ukrainians“ is provided by (Vienna, ca. 1926), pp. 1-62.

15 See , XXV (1948), 240-65. Also see CCCP, IX-XIII 66. (Moscow, 1953), pp. 334-57.

16 Andrei's refusal to accept the Kiev throne is regarded by the Russian historian S. Soloviev as a “sobytie povorotnoe.” C. M. (Moscow, 1959), I, 529-34.

17 Andrei (5th ed.; St. Petersburg, 1762), p. 107. Cf. (Moscow and Leningrad, 1955), II, 432: “Syn polovchanki Andrei Bogoliubskii imel polovetskoe imia Kitai.“

18 . (Leningrad, 1940), p. 64–78.

19 According to official Soviet historiography the Ukrainian nation and its culture are said to have begun in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Prerevolutionary Russian historiography was based firmly on the assumption of the transfer of centers, and consequently had no place for the history of the Ukraine except to associate it with separatism in the modern period. Beginning with the (Moscow, 1937) the following scheme has been dominant: prior to the thirteenth century there existed a common Old-Russian nation (sic), which during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries developed into three East European nations—the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian—but for the period prior to the fourteenth century the terms “Old Russian” or “Russian” are used interchangeably, and this period is in fact appropriated for the Russian nation by official Soviet historiography. Research on this early period is centered in Moscow and Leningrad. Studies published in the Ukraine are permitted to deal with this early period only in a cursory manner.

20 A curious practice is occasionally encountered in the works of certain American specialists on the history of Eastern Europe. In bibliographic annotations a double standard is sometimes evident: tendentious works of Russian and other historians are frequently cited without any qualifying adjectives, while Hrushevsky is referred to as a “nationalist“ because he dared to demonstrate the incorrectness of the concept of the “transfer” of centers. In actual fact Hrushevsky was, in his politics, not a “nationalist” but a socialist and a leader of the Ukrainian Social Revolutionary Party. Clearly, if the adjective “nationalist“ is to be employed it should be on the basis of the same standard. In accepting unquestionably the terminology of official Soviet Russian historiography, American scholars should know that the Soviet use of the epithet “nationalist” does not correspond to the Western meaning of the same term, since a former member of the Central Committee of the CPSU can also be branded as a “nationalist” if his viewpoint should conflict with the current general line of the party.

21 See, for example, the chapter on the emergence of the “Old Russian nationality” in ., I (Moscow, 1953), 251-58. It is worth noting that in this chapter, as in other works of this character, the terms “Old Russian“ (meaning “Old Rus'“) and “Russian” are used synonymously. In this context one is prompted to ask if it is not time that American historians of Eastern Europe abandon the terminology used by Russians (for reasons of their own) and employ one that is strictly objective. For example, the term “Kievan Russia” connotes a nonexistent relationship of Kiev with a Russia which emerged several centuries later; obviously the accurate term is “Kievan Rus', ” since Rus’ is not identical with Russia.

22 An account of Saint Kuksha is to be found in the Kievan Patericon. For a Russian translation see . (Moscow, 1957), pp. 158-59.

23 On the Viatichi as the basis of the later Muscovite or Russian literary language (akan'e, etc.) see the various works by A. A. Shakhmatov, for example: A. A. (Petrograd, 1916); (Petrograd, 1915); (Petrograd, 1919). See also (2nd ed.; Moscow, 1953), pp. 221, 238-41.

A lengthy polemic on the character of the language of the Poliane and the Old Kievan language resulted in acceptance of its Ukrainian character. See (Kiev, 1956), p p. 104-24.

It is known that the Russian philologists N. P. Pogodin and A. I. Sobolevsky propounded the thesis that the inhabitants of Old Kiev were Great Russians who migrated to the north after Kiev was seized by the Mongols in 1240. Bulakhovsky has cast doubt upon this hypothesis in the following terms: “The linguistic facts do not support the hypothesis of Pogodin and Sobolevsky regarding the ‘Great Russian’ population of Old Kiev and the Kievan Principality (Kyiivshchyna)“; ibid., p. 217.

24 , I (Moscow and Leningrad, 1950), 14-15.

25 It is for this reason that in the Pereiaslav Tercentenary edition of selected documents none is dated prior to 1620. See note 27.

26 It is significant that both nations, the Muscovites and the Ukrainians, developed different messianic concepts: while in Muscovy the political “Third Rome” concept emerged, one finds in the Ukraine the Kiev religious concept viewing that city as the “Second Jerusalem.” See R. Stupperich, “Kiev—das Zweite Jerusalem, ” in Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie, XII, No. 3-4 (1935), 332-54.

27 The collection of selected documents on the “reunion” is: (Moscow, 1953); Vol. I (1620-47), 585 pp.; Vol. II (1648-51), 559 pp.; Vol. I l l (1651-54), 645 pp.

In our discussion of the differences between Muscovy and the Ukraine in the midseventeenth century we have relied almost exclusively upon this official Soviet selection of documents designed to demonstrate the thesis of “reunion.” The representative quotations from these documents included in our discussion are not footnoted separately; reference is made in parentheses in the text to specific citations from these volumes. (The title of this collection is hardly accurate in view of the fact that prior to 1654 the term Rosiia was applied to the Ukraine and not to Muscovy, for which the term Rusiia or “Muscovite state” was used.)

The accounts of foreigners who visited the Ukraine and Muscovy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and who were impressed with the many basic differences between the two nations can be found in B. (Lviv, 1938), pp. 36-135. An English translation is available: V. Sichynsky, Ukraine in Foreign Comments and Descriptions (New York, 1953), pp. 39-138.

28 , X (St. Petersburg, 1878), 427.

29 See, for example, B. (Moscow, 1894-99); (4th ed.; St. Petersburg, 1911), Vol. II.

30 See the intitulatio in the letter of the sotnyk of Hlukhiv S. Veichik to the Muscovite voevoda of Sevsk Prince T. I. Shcherbatov (April 22, 1651; III, 25): The letter also contained the following Ukrainian admonition:

31 Cf. the Russian translation from Ukrainian (perevod zhe z beloruskogo pis'ma) of the letter of the sotnyk of Kotel'nytsia H. Tripolev to the Muscovite voevoda of Vol'noe V. Novosiltsev of March 2, 1653 (III, 254).

32 Cf. a letter of the polkovnyk of Poltava M. Pushkar to the voevoda of Belgorod Prince I. P. Pronsky of June 5, 1650:

33 In June, 1657, Hetman Khmelnytsky insisted upon maintaining the tie with Sweden, in a statement made to the Muscovite envoy Buturlin, in the following terms: “I will never sever my ties with the Swedish king because our alliance, friendship, and understanding are of long duration having commenced more than six years ago before our subjection to the high hand of the tsar“; III (St. Petersburg, 1861), 568.

In April, 1657, the Ukrainian envoy to the Ottoman Porte, Lavryn Kapusta, presented a diplomatic note in which the sultan was addressed as “our highest lord” (dominum nostrum supremum) and in which emphasis was placed on “testifying to our old friendship, sincere fidelity and service” (ut nostram antiquam imicitiam ac sinceram fidelitatem ac servitia erga eandem Portam declararemus) , Part III, Vol. VI (Kiev, 1908), 216-17.

34 There is a vast literature dealing with the nature of the Pereiaslav Treaty, discussed in , IX, Part II (Kiev, 1931), 865-69; H. Fleischhacker, “Aleksej MichajloviČ und Bogdan Chmel'nickij, ” in Jahrbücher für Kultur und Geschichte der Slaven, N.F., XI, No. 1 (1935), 11-52; 1654 p. (New York, 1954), pp. 64-69.

Various interpretations have been offered: personal union, real union, protectorate, quasi protectorate, vassalage, military alliance, autonomy, incorporation. In our opinion the Pereiaslav Treaty, which was a result of lengthy negotiations between two signatories having different systems, cannot be subsumed under a single category. In view of our discussion it is reasonable to conclude that in substance, from Khmelnytsky's point of view, it was a military alliance (Hetman Orlyk termed the Pereiaslav Treaty implicitly “le Traite d'Alliance, ” see the end of this note) like others he had with the Ottoman sultan and the king of Sweden. In a formal sense the Pereiaslav Treaty had as well elements of a personal union and of a quasi protectorate. It can be regarded as a personal union, since the treaty had been concluded with the tsar (and there were no common institutions apart from the person of the tsar) and because of the preservation of a separate Cossack State and its continuing to be a subject of international law capable of imposing tariffs.

There is also a basis for regarding the Pereiaslav Treaty as a quasi protectorate in view of the following considerations: Since the tsar as an absolute monarch identified his person with the state, the Pereiaslav Treaty was not only an agreement between two rulers but was also a treaty between two states. This is also evident in the fact that in addition to Khmelnytsky, the Zaporozhian Host appeared as an official treaty partner whom Hetman Orlyk described as “les États de l'Ukraine” (see end of note). If it were only a personal union there would have been no place for a hetman and the tsar could have assumed the title of hetman. Instead, Khmelnytsky remained as hetman and was empowered to conduct foreign relations (having full competence with certain precisely defined limitations); had Pereiaslav established a complete protectorate (as contrasted with a quasi protectorate), the hetman would not have had the right to conduct foreign relations. In addition, the Ukraine preserved her full state apparatus after 1654, and the Muscovite troops stationed in the Ukraine were circumscribed in their rights in the same way that American troops stationed in Western Europe under NATO have been forbidden to intervene in the internal affairs of the host country.

The duration of the treaty had been determined as voveki; in the Russian language of the seventeenth century this word did not have the meaning “eternity” but “perpetual” in the sense “for life, ” for example, in a document of 1641 the word voveki is explained by means of do smerti zhivota svoego (“to the end of his life“; I, 318). Therefore, each of Khmelnytsky's successors was supposed to renew the treaty.

Hetman P. Orlyk gives in 1712 the following definition of the Pereiaslav Treaty: “Mais l'argument et la preuve la plus forte et la plus invincible de la Souveraineté de l'Ukraine est le Traité d'AUiance solennel conclu entre le Czar Alexei Mikailovstch et le Due Chmielnicki et les Etats de l'Ukraine. Ce Traité fut arrêté en 1654 et signé par les Plenipotentionaires nommez de part et d'autre pour cet effet. Un Traité si solennel et si precis qui étoit appelé Traité Perp^tuel…” Philippe, Orlik, Deduction des droits de l'Ukraine: D'apres un manuscrit, conservé dans les archives du chateau de Dinteville avec une introduction et des notes (Lviv: publié par I. Bortchak, 1925), p. 9.Google Scholar

35 See, for example, H., Fleischhacker, Die Stoats- und völkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der moskauischen Aussenpolitik (14.-17. Jahrhundert) (2nd ed.; Darmstadt, 1959), pp. 168–69Google Scholar.

36 , I (Vienna, 1920), 35-S9; Fleischhacker, Die Staatsund völkerrechtlichen Grundlagen … , pp. 176-90. See the decree (universal) of Khmelnytsky of February 2, 1656, appointing Ivan Nechai as governor (polkovnyk) of White Ruthenia in the collection of Khmelnytsky's documents published in 1961 by I. Krypiakevych and I. Butych (cited in note 37), pp. 470-71.

37 Metropolitan Sylvester Kosov, speaking through his representative, Innokentius Gizel, in July, 1654, based his refusal to submit the Ukrainian Church to the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Muscovy on the following considerations: Kiev's ties with Byzantium were said to date from the times of the Apostle Andrew (the old Kievan legend of the Princely Period); only a decision of an Ecumenical Council could determine a change in the jurisdiction of a metropolitanate. , X (St. Petersburg, 1878), 751-54.

The frequently expressed view that the existence of a common religious faith between Muscovy and the Ukraine was a determining factor in bringing about the Pereiaslav Treaty must not be accepted without question. Indeed, before 1685 Ukrainian religious ties were with the Constantinople patriarchate and not with the patriarch of Moscow. A revealing letter sent to the Sultan Mehmet IV by Khmelnytsky on December 7, 1651, gives evidence of this: “Since all Greece accepts the suzerainty of Your Imperial Majesty, my gracious Lord, all Rus’ [Ukrainians] which are of the same faith as the Greeks and having their [religious] origins with them, wish each day to be under the rule of Your Imperial Majesty, my Gracious Lord. (Kiev, 1961), p. 233. Thus it is clear that in emphasizing religious ties Khmelnytsky was simply employing a stylistic element of his political lexicon.

38 Although the text of Buturlin's account to the tsar (in the form in which it is available) does not refer to any official promises made to Khmelnytsky on behalf of the tsar in place of the oath which the hetman wanted Buturlin to take, it is apparent that such promises were made. Gizel's petition addressed to the tsar in connection with the Pereiaslav Treaty, written but six months after the conclusion of the treaty, emphasizes in two separate passages official promises made to Khmelnytsky by Buturlin on behalf of the tsar. , X, 751-54). It is impossible to question the accuracy of this source.

39 Part III, Vol. VI (Kiev, 1908), 362-69. See also the statement made by Hetman I. Mazepa (1708) in which he announced his decision to annul the treaty with Peter I (as is known, in the Muscovite-Russian interpretation this act of annulment was regarded as “treason“—izmena): “I had decided to write a letter of thanks to his tsarist highness (Peter I) for the protection [protektsiu], and to list in it all the insults to us, past and present, the loss of rights and liberties, the ultimate ruin and destruction being prepared for the whole nation, and, finally, to state that we had bowed under the high hand of his tsarist highness as a free people for the sake of the one Eastern Orthodox Faith. Now, being a free people, we are freely departing, and we thank his tsarist highness for this protection. We do not want to extend our hand and spill Christian blood, but we will await our complete liberation under the protection of the Swedish King. , 1862, p. 15.

40 A similar conclusion has been drawn by Kliuchevsky: “Not comprehending each other and not trusting each other, both sides in their mutual relationship did not say what they thought and did what they did not wish to do Therefore, the Little Russian [Ukrainian] question, so falsely posed by both [Russian and Ukrainian] sides, encumbered and corrupted Moscow's foreign policy for several decades “ , Part III (Moscow, 1957), 118-19.

41 (1938), No. 2 (3), pp. 88-98.

42 See photo plate IX in the symposium (St. Petersburg, 1907).

43 The Fathers of the Synod of the Church of Constantinople in 1389 declared: “Since it was impossible to concentrate secular authority in Rus’ in one person, the Holy Fathers of the Synod established a single spiritual authority.” Acta patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, ed. F. Miklosich and I. Miiller (Vienna, 1860), I, 520. A monastic rule of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century prescribes that prayers shall be offered on behalf of , II, Part II (Kiev, 1908), 1085.

44 V (Lviv, 1905), 389.

45 (Lviv, 1941), p. 5.

46 Chancellor Vyhovsky insisted during negotiations with Sweden in 1657 that the basis of the treaty should be “das Jus totius Ukrainae antiquae vel Roxolaniam, da der Griechiesche Glaube gewesen und die Sprache noch ist, biss an die Weixel p. 282, n. 185.

47 In the middle of the seventeenth century in the Ukraine the term Rosiia was employed, while in Muscovy the term Rusiia was used. The Kiev Metropolitan Sylvester Kospv bore the title “Mytropolyt Kyievskyi, Halytskyi i vseia Rosii” (III, 215) or “vseia Malyia Rosii” (III, 157). The title of the tsar of Muscovy was “vseia Rusii” (III, 7, 60, 372). Also in the documents relating to the Pereiaslav Treaty the tsar called himself “vseia Velikiia i Malyia Rus(s)ii Samoderzhets (1830), I, doc. no. 119, p. 325. After May 8, 1654, the tsar completed the title as follows “vseia Velikiia i Malyia i Belyia Rossii Samoderzhets“; ibid., p. 338.

48 See (Kiev, 1931), IX, Part II, p. 1396; cf. p. 1113. As a result of the unhappy experience after the Pereiaslav Treaty, the hetmans endeavored to guard against the usurpation of the Ukrainian name in a foreign monarch's title. In the treaty between Mazepa and Charles XII there was a special provision dealing with this matter: “5. L'on n'innovera rien à ce qui a été observé jusques à présent au sujet des Armes et du Titre de Prince de 1'Ukraine. S.M.R. ne pourra jamais s'arroger ce Titre ni les Armes.” Philippe Orlik, Deduction des droits de 1'Ukraine (see note 34), p. 11.

49 See 1862, pp. 13-14.

50 (Augsburg, 1948), p. 22. It was only after the uprising led by Mazepa that Peter I changed the title of “vseia Velikiia Malyia i Belyia Rossii Samoderzhets” (quoted for the last time in a document on Nov. 1, 1708, in (1830), IV, 424, to the new form of “samoderzhets Vserossiiskii, “ which was used for the first time in the Gramota malorossiiskomu narodu of Nov. 9, 1708. Ibid., IV, 426.

51 See (2nd ed.; Kiev and Lviv, 1922), VIII, Part I, p. 263.

52 See the numerous maps by de Beauplan, Homann, and others. For a recent account in English which surveys this cartographic documentation see Bohdan, Krawciw, “Ukraine in Western Cartography and Science in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” The Ukrainian Quarterly, XVIII (Spring, 1962), 24–39.Google Scholar

53 Reshetar, J. S. Jr., The Ukrainian Revolution 1917-1920 (Princeton, N.J., 1952), pp. 34–36, 40.Google Scholar

54 (St. Petersburg, 1862), II, 193.

55 See (Kazan, 1914).

56 For data regarding the controversy over the authorship of Istoriia Rusov see Andriy Yakovliv, “Istoriya Rusov and its Author, ” and Olexander Ohloblyn, “Where Was Istoriya Rusov Written?” in Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S., III, No. 2 (1953), 620-95. Also see Élie Borschak, La légende historique de I'Ukraine: Istorija Rusov (Paris, 1949). For a general work on the Novhorod-Siversk stage see (Munich, 1959).

57 , pp. 304-5.

58 , ed. O. Ohloblyn and trans. V. Davydenko (New York, 1956), p. 275.

59 Ibid., pp. 308-9.

60 (St. Petersburg, 1906), p. 411.

61 An early secret political group among the Left Bank gentry in the Poltava region at the time of the Decembrist movement was the Lukashevych Circle, whose members were said to have advocated an independent Ukraine. See (2nd ed.; Lviv, 1922), pp. 7-8, and (Warsaw, 1933), II, 289.

62 Thus in verse 84, in discussing Khmelnytsky's Pereiaslav Treaty with Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich: “Ukraine soon perceived that she had fallen into captivity because in her simplicity she did not realize what the Muscovite tsar signifies, and the Muscovite tsar meant the same as an idol and persecutor.” Regarding Peter I and Catherine II the Books of Genesis had this to say: “the last tsar of Muscovy and the first [St.] Petersburg emperor [Peter I] destroyed hundreds of thousands [of Ukrainian Cossacks] in ditches and built for himself a capital on their bones.” “And the German tsarina Catherine [II], a universal debauchee, atheist, husband slayer, ended the [Zaporozhian] Cossack Host and freedom because having selected those who were the starshiny [elected elders] in Ukraine, she allotted them nobility and lands and she gave them the free brethren in yoke, she made some masters and others slaves. (Augsburg, 1947), pp. 20-21, 22. For an English translation see Kostomarov's “Books of Genesis of the Ukrainian People” with a commentary by B. Yanivs'kyi [Volodymyr Mijakovs'kyj] (New York: Research Program on the U.S.S.R. Mimeographed Series, No. 60, 1954).

63 , op. cit., p. 24.

64 Shevchenko's attitude towards Russian rule and the misbehavior of Russians in the Ukraine is especially evident in the poems (1844). It is also significant that Shevchenko consistently referred to the Russians as “Moskali.“

65 On the Ukrainian publishing house in Geneva see , II (New York, 1953), 58-104.

66 See Mykhailo Drahomanov: A Symposium and Selected Writings, Vol. II, No. 1 (1952), of The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S. Also see , op. cit., pp. 89 and 111.

67 (Lviv, 1895), pp. 74, 131-32Google Scholar. Also see Yaroslav, Bilinsky, “Drahomanov, Franko and Relations between the Dnieper Ukraine and Galicia,” Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S.., VII (1959), 1542–66.Google Scholar

68 See the discussion in Dmytro Doroshenko, “A Survey of Ukrainian Historiography, “ in Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S., V-VI (1957), 261-75.

69 See, for example, Leon, Wasilewski, Kwestja Ukraińska jako zagadnienie międzynarodowe (Warsaw, 1934).Google Scholar

70 , op. cit., p. 24.

71 (Moscow, 1952), V, 49.