Short URL for this page:

[image ALT: Much of my site will be useless to you if you've got the images turned off!]
Bill Thayer

[image ALT: Cliccare qui per una pagina di aiuto in Italiano.]

[Link to a series of help pages]
[Link to the next level up]
[Link to my homepage]

[image ALT: link to previous section]

This webpage reproduces a section of

Survey of Ukrainian Historiography
By Dmytro Doroshenko

published by
The Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences
in the U. S., Inc.,

The text is in the public domain.

This page has been carefully proofread
and I believe it to be free of errors.
If you find a mistake though,
please let me know!


[image ALT: link to next section]

 p116  The Development of Ethnographical Studies and Their Relation to Historiography;
a "People" as an Object of Research

In addition to history, ethnography proved to be another rich source that nurtured the Ukrainian national revival in the nineteenth century. Interest in the common people, its language and oral literature began in the period of Romanticism, which originated in Western Europe at the end of the eighteenth century and soon spread to Slavic lands. "The deepest source of this revival," wrote A. Pypin, "lies in the living forces of the national being, in the new social, literary, poetic interest in the people,  p117 which is characteristic not only of Slavic but of all European life in modern times. . . . Ethnographical studies revealed the rich originality of the Ukrainian people, while history uncovered its ancient traditions." The life of the people becomes, therefore, an object of study. . . . The Romantics attempted to find in it traces of national characteristics which have disappeared from the life of the educated classes. . . . Folksongs and folklore in general began to be regarded as a repository of unspoilt antiquity.

The first study in ethnography appeared in the Ukraine as early as 1777 when Hryhoriy Kalynovsky published Opisanie svadebnykh prostonarodnykh ukrainskikh obryadov v Maloi Rossii i v slobodskoi ukrainskoi gubernii (A Description of Ukrainian Wedding Customs of the Common People in Little Russia and in the Slobidska Province of the Ukraine), St. Petersburg. Yet ethnographical studies gathered serious impetus only in the nineteenth century. In 1819 Prince Nicholas Tsertelev published Opyt sobraniya starinnykh malorossiiskikh pesnei (A Collection of Ancient Little Russian Songs) which included ten dumy and songs. Tsertelev regarded the publication of these fragments as an act of patriotism. "If these verses," he wrote in the preface, "cannot serve as an explanation of Little Russian history then at least they reveal the poetical genius of the people, its spirit, customs, and last but not least, that high morality which has always been characteristic of the Little Russians and which they carefully preserve to this day as the only heritage of their ancestors which escaped the rapacity of neighboring peoples."

In 1827 a young Moscow professor, M. Maksymovych, published his Malorossiiskiya pesni (Little Russian Songs) with an enthusiastic preface about the qualities of Ukrainian folksongs. Other collections of folksongs were published by Maksymovych in 1834 and 1849. I. Sreznevsky published in Kharkiv (1833‑38) his Zaporozhskaya starina (Zaporozhian Antiquity) where, besides genuine folksongs, he included some of his own imitations of folk poetry. In 1836 P. Lukashevych published Malorossiiskiya i chervonorusskiya narodnyya dumy i pesni (Little Russian and Red Russian Folk Dumy and Songs).

 p118  All these publications opened to both scholars and wide circles of readers a new field — that of folklore in which the people's soul was, as it were, richly reflected through the course of centuries. Folksongs, dumy and historical songs began to be regarded as historical monuments and in some cases were held to be more authentic than written documents. Much space was devoted to folksongs and oral tradition in historical studies, and some enthusiasts of Ukrainian folklore, like Mykola Hohol (Nicholas Gogol), who also contemplated a history of the Ukraine, regarded folksongs as possessing a greater value than written chronicles.

The most famous representative of the ethnographic trend76 among the historians was Mykola Kostomarov. In 1844, at Kharkiv University, he defended his dissertation on the "Historical Significance of Russian Folk Poetry," to the astonishment of some of the professors who regarded the "peasant songs" as unworthy of scholar­ly inquiry. Kostomarov's approach to history was based on the belief that not the deeds of hetmans and princes but movements within the mass of the people represent history. Therefore he devoted himself to the study of those periods of history when mass movements gained the upper hand (the Cossack insurrections, the period of Khmelnytsky, the rebellion of Sten'ka Razin) and in his work used folklore as one of his main sources. Kostomarov remained faithful to his views to the end of his life and his opinion was best expressed in a lecture on "The Relation of Ethnography to History," in the 1860's:

The historians paid attention to the state and its development; they regarded the people as soulless masses, material for the state, which alone, it seemed, was capable of growth . . . A historian who explores the life of human society, that is of people in the past, comes in close contact with the ethnographer who studies the contemporary life of the people. On the other hand, an ethnographer can understand the life of a people only by knowing its historical past.

Most Ukrainian historians of the 1830's and 1840's were also ethnographers. Naturally the Romantic interest in the people did not express itself in ethnography alone. It was also apparent  p119 in deep sympathy for the social and economic needs of the people and in the desire to explore the reasons for their loss of political freedom, decay of the social system, the disappearance of Ukrainian educated and upper classes, and the enslavement of the peasantry of the Ukraine. This manifested itself very strikingly in the works of Kostomarov, Kulish (in the first period of his activity) and, later, Antonovych and Lazarevsky.

The founding of the universities in Kharkiv (1805) and Kiev (1834) led to the creation of two centers of culture which helped in the education of a new generation of Ukrainian intellectuals and stimulated historical research according to new scholar­ly methods. [. . .] The efforts of the Russian government to establish archeographic commissions in Kiev, Vilno, and Vitebsk, and to constitute and safeguard archives, although part of the Russification policy, had a good influence on the development of Ukrainian historiography by giving it new means and sources for study. The work of Ukrainian historian-ethnographers of the 1830's and 1840's formed the basis for a scientific appraisal of Ukrainian history as a whole and stimulated first attempts toward a scholar­ly synthesis, a development which came much later.

First among the Ukrainian historian-ethnographers was Maksymovych. He was followed by Sreznevsky, Bodyansky, Kostomarov, and Kulish. Apart from these, there were many less distinguished but equally deserving scholars: M. Sudiyenko, O. Markovych, M. Bilozersky, M. Zakrevsky, and popular writers like H. Kvitka, the brothers Passek, and others.

Mykhaylo Maksymovych (1804‑1873), born in the province of Poltava, came from an old Cossack gentry family. He was educated in the Gymnasium in Novhorod-Siversky and at Moscow University, where he was a graduate of the literary and physico-mathematical faculties. In 1827 he received his Master's degree and became a lecturer in botany. In 1833 he was appointed full professor at Moscow University. In 1834 he became Prof. of Russian literature at the newly founded University of Kiev of which he was also the rector.

In 1845 he retired from teaching and settled in his khutir Mykhaylova Hora, near Zolotonosha, opposite Kaniv on the Dnieper,  p120 where he lived and worked until his death [. . .] He was a friend of Pushkin, Hohol (Gogol), and Shevchenko, and had a great influence on the young Kulish.

Maksymovych gained a reputation for himself by publishing a collection of folksongs. In 1827 his first collection Malorossiiskiya pesni (The Little Russian Songs) appeared in Moscow. In the preface, the author proclaimed his enthusiastic belief in the value of Ukrainian folk poetry.

It seems that the time has come to recognize the real value of folk art; a desire has been expressed that a truly Rus′ poetry should be created. The best of our poets do not follow models from foreign works, but help to develop original poetry which has its roots in the native soil, but which has long been overshadowed by foreign transplantations, only occasionally succeeding in piercing through them.

In this respect those monuments deserve most attention which are most expressive of the people's art — that is the folksongs, where the soul is full of feeling, and the stories reflect a people's phantasy. They often contain fables, beliefs, customs, and sometimes real events which have not been preserved in other sources . . . Therefore the legends relating to popular mythology and customs, and the collection of songs are very important.

With this in mind I devoted myself to such topics in Little Russia and for the first time published a selection of folksongs of this country . . . being convinced that they occupy one of the first places among songs of Slavic peoples.

Maksymovych's collection includes women's, lyrical, and historical songs. The book made a great impression, and in response to it Hohol (Gogol), among many others, wrote his article on Ukrainian songs.

In 1834 Maksymovych published Ukrainskiya narodnyya pesni (Ukrainian Folksongs), Part I, and in 1849 Sbornik ukrainskikh pesen' (A Collection of Ukrainian Songs), Part I. Both contain historical songs and dumy. Both editions were discontinued after the appearance of the first parts.

From ethnography Maksymovych turned to history. He wrote neither comprehensive surveys nor monographs but left a great number of short treatises, articles, and critical reviews. A scholar of great erudition and critical perceptivity, Maksymovych rendered  p121 the greatest service to Ukrainian historiography by his critical evaluation of sources and by his analysis of individual problems of Ukrainian history. He was a very prolific writer and contributed to almost all the scholar­ly journals in Russia and the Ukraine, drawing public interest to the study of Ukrainian history. [. . .] Maksymovych had no doubt that the history of Kievan Rus′ is an integral part of Ukrainian history. To this question he devoted his "O mnimom zapustenii Ukrainy" (Of the Supposed Desolation of the Ukraine), "Pis'ma k Pogodinu o samobytnosti malorossiiskago narechiya," (Letters to Pogodin Concerning the Originality of the Little Russian Dialect), 1856, 1863, and Istoriya drevnei russkoi slovesnosti (A History of Old Russian Literature), 1839, where he demonstrated the connection between the early and later period of Ukrainian history.

Maksymovych published several symposia on history, archeology, and literature in which he included many of his articles. The Kievlyanin (The Kievan), Kiev, 1840, 1841, 1849, and Ukrainets (The Ukrainian), Moscow, 1859, 1864, contain the following articles of interest: "Obozrenie starago Kieva" (Survey of Old Kiev), KievlyaninI; "O nadgrobiyakh v Pecherskom monastyre" (About the Epitaphs in the Pechersky Monastery), ibid.; "O gorodakh Peresopnitse i Dubrovitse" (About the Towns of Peresopnitsa and Dubrovitsa), ibid.; "Vydubetsky Monastyr' " (Vydubetsky Monastery), ibid.II; "Skazanie o getmane Petre Sagaidachnom" (The Tale About Hetman Sahaydachnyi), ibid.III; and others.

Among other articles by Maksymovych the following deserve to be mentioned:

Skazanie o Kolievshchine (A Tale About the Koliyi Movement), written 1839, published in 1875; O getmane Sagaidachnom (About Hetman Sahaydachnyi), 1843, an account of the life and activities of this famous Hetman; Bubnovskaya sotnya (The Bubnovskaya Company), 1848, a monograph about the surroundings of Bubnov in Poltava Province; [. . .] O prichinakh vzaimnago ozhestocheniya malorossiyan i polyakov v XVII v. (The Reasons for the Mutual Bitterness Between the Little Russians  p122 and the Poles in the XVII Century), 1857, a polemic against an article by M. Grabowski in Kulish's Zapiski o yuzhnoi Rusi; O mnimom zapustenii Ukrainy v nashestvie Batyya, a correction to the hypothesis put forward by Pogodin that the Kiev lands were populated by the Great Russians before the Mongol invasion, and that during the Tatar domination the country was devastated and only later populated by settlers from the West Ukraine; Obozrenie gorodovykh polkov i soten', byvshikh na Ukraine do smerti B. Khmelnitskago (A Survey of Town Regiments and Companies in the Ukraine Before the Death of Khmelnytsky), 1856; Pis'ma o Bogdane Khmelnitskom (Letters about Bohdan Khmelnytsky) 1857‑59, reflections and notes on the well-known monograph by Kostomarov; Ob istoricheskom romane Kulisha "Chorna Rada" (About the Historical Novel by Kulish: Chorna Rada), 1857; Istoricheskie pis'ma o kozakakh zaporozhskikh (Historical Studies of Zaporozhian Cossacks), 1863, concerned with the work of V. Antonovych.

Most important are Maksymovych's commentaries on Ukrainian chronicles — on the occasion of the publication of Hrabyanka's work (in Moskvityanin, 1856, No. 17‑18) and "Yuzhnorusskiya letopisi" by Bilozersky (in Russkaya Beseda, 1857, book 3).

A complete edition of Maksymovych's works was published at the expense of the South-Western Section of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society, edited by V. Antonovych, in three volumes: Sobranie sochinenii (Collected Works), Kiev, 1876‑1880. The first volume contains all historical studies by Maksymovych; the second volume, studies in historical topography, archeology and ethnography; the third, philological and literary studies.

Maksymovych responded to all the controversial issues of his day; he polemized against Pogodin concerning the independent status of the Ukrainian language [. . .] He also published Ukrainian translations of the Lay of the Host of Igor (1857) and of the Psalms (1859).

In 1841, while in Kiev, Maksymovych had intended to found  p123 a historical association for the study of Ukrainian history. His idea found partial realization in the creation in 1843 of the "Vremennaya komissiya dlya razbora drevnikh aktov" (Temporary Commission for the Study of Old Materials) in Kiev.

Izmail Sreznevsky (1812‑1880) was born in Yaroslav in Muscovy, but spent his childhood in Kharkiv where his father was a professor at the University. Upon the completion of his studies in 1837 Sreznevsky also became a professor of Kharkiv University.

While still at the university, Sreznevsky was an enthusiastic student of Slavic folklore, in particular of Ukrainian songs and history. During his visit to a land­owner's family in the Katerynoslav Province he wrote down folksongs and dumy and visited the aged Kotlyarevsky in Poltava. In 1831 he published in Kharkiv Ukrainskii almanakh (Ukrainian Almanac) containing Russian and Ukrainian works of literature. In 1833 he began publishing his Zaporozhskaya starina (Zaporozhian Antiquity), six issues of which appeared before 1838. In the Ucheniya Zapiski (Proceedings) of Moscow University for 1834, Sreznevsky published articles on Ukrainian folksongs and on Skovoroda. During these years many of his articles on Ukrainian history appeared in various journals:

"Palii," Syn otechestva, 1834, No. 14; "Vygovsky i Pushkar'," ibid., No. 47; "Ivan Barabash," Moskovskii Nablyudatel', 1835, I; "Martynets (Bryukhovetsky)," ibid.II; "Styrskoe delo," Severnaya Pchela, 1835, No. 178; "Martyn Pushkar'," Ocherki Rossii, 1838, I; "Yurii Khmelnichenko," Pribavleniya k Russkomu Invalidu, 1838, No. 20; "Kozaki-gaidamaki uniatskoi voiny 1494‑1654" (Cossacks-haydamaks of the Uniate War), Ocherki Rossii, 1840, II.

Sreznevsky published as separate books Ukrainskaya letopis' 1640‑57 (Ukrainian Chronicle), Kharkiv, 1835 (an outline of the reigns of the Hetmans Barabash and Khmelnytsky, with extracts from the chronicles and folksongs); and Istoricheskoe obozrenie grazhdanskago ustroistva Slobodskoi Ukrainy (A Historical Survey of the Social System of the Slobidska Ukraine), Kharkiv, 1839, written on the basis of archival materials. The  p124 latter book was described by D. Bahaliy as a "most serious treatise," (Istoriya Slobids'koyi Ukrayiny, p296) and by A. Pypin as "an outstanding work," (Malorusskaya etnografiya, St. Petersburg, 1891, p95). In 1838 Sreznevsky published in Moscow Kotlyarevksy's Natalka Poltavka as the first in the series Ukrainskii Sbornik (A Ukrainian Symposium). In 1841 it was followed by Moskal' Charivnyk, Ukrainskii SbornikII. Sreznevsky was also a contributor to Passek's Ocherki Rossii and to the Encyclopedic Dictionary by Plushar. [. . .] Enthusiasm for things Ukrainian is manifest in all Sreznevsky's works.

In his article "Vzglyad na pamyatniki ukrainskoi narodnoi slovesnosti" (A View of the Monuments of Ukrainian Folk Literature) printed in Uchenyya Zapiski Imperatorskago Moskovskago Universiteta, 1834, VI, Sreznevsky writes:

At present there is no need to demonstrate that the Ukrainian (or as it is called the Little Russian) tongue is a language and not, as some argued and many believed, a dialect of the Russian or Polish languages.

It is one of the richest Slavic languages, no less abundant in vocabulary and expressions than Bohemian, as artistic as Polish and as melodious as Serbian. Although still unpolished, in flexibility and syntax it can compare with the well developed languages. It is a poetical, musical, and artistic language.

Sreznevsky was a great believer in the Ukrainian literature of the future:

Why should the deep-thinking Skovoroda, the unsophisticated Kotlyarevksy, the imaginative Artemovsky, the witty Osnov'yanenko and several other promising writers from whom the Ukraine can expect honor, remain alone in the desert of Ukrainian literature? The language of Khmelnytsky, Pushkar, Doroshenko, Paliy, Kochubey, Apostol, should transmit to coming generations the glory of these great men of the Ukraine.

Sreznevsky's fervent patriotism and his untiring work in the field of Ukrainian history make him one of the most distinguished participants in the Ukrainian national revival in the first half of the nineteenth century. In 1839 Sreznevsky went on a scholar­ly mission to the Slavic lands. In 1841 he returned to Kharkiv.  p125 He was made a professor at St. Petersburg University in 1843. From that time onwards his enthusiasm for the Ukrainian diminished considerably. Later he even spoke openly against the Ukrainian language as having a distinct character. Yet his early works had left their deep trace on Ukrainian historiography.

Among his most influential works was his Zaporozhskaya Starina. As a motto, Sreznevsky chose a quotation from Kotlyarevksy ("So it was once during the eternal memory of the Hetman State") and another one from Mickiewicz ("It's still and quiet everywhere"), contrasting in this way the famous past of the Ukraine with its present insignificance. In his introduction Sreznevsky wrote:

By sending forth into the world my collection of Zaporozhian dumy and songs I intended to render a small service of the lovers of folk poetry, and in particular to those wishing to learn about the Zaporozhian past, the life, the customs and exploits of this military people, who have earned for themselves a place of honor by their bravery and courage, their influence on the entire southeast of Europe and also on Asia Minor, especially in the seventeenth century, and by the individual mode of life and system of organization, so different from their neighbors.

Ukrainian chronicles only mention the exploits of these people at random and rarely touch on the internal life (of the Zaporozhians). The exploits themselves are described very briefly, often incorrectly, each contradicting the other.

Of still smaller value are the Polish chronicles; less still the Moldavian. Lastly, the Russian chronicles barely mention the Zaporozhians. The paucity of written materials for the history of Zaporozhe makes it necessary to seek other sources, which may be found in abundant, inexhaustible supply in folk legends.

The narrators of these folk tales about the past are the kobzars-bandurysts (Ukrainian minstrels).

In the memory of these old men the Zaporozhian past is still alive and therefore they are more important than the chronicles. Although the legends related by them must be critically scrutinized, they are nevertheless indispensable for everyone who wants to know the history of the Zaporozhians and of the Ukraine . . . The fact that these legends are very little known prompted me to collect them and . . . after seven years of preparation I succeeded in gathering a considerable number of songs, dumy, and legends.

 p126  Sreznevsky did, in fact, collect Ukrainian folksongs; in this work he was helped by his friend, Fedir Evetsky, a land­owner from the Province of Katerynoslav who was a student of Ukrainian history and ethnography. Yet Sreznevsky did not confine himself to the publishing of folksongs; in his patriotic enthusiasm, desiring to shed light on some obscure passages and personages in history, he resorted to what some Czech patriots were doing at that time: he composed songs and dumy, publishing them as folksongs. A somewhat similar forgery was later committed by Shyshatsky-Illych of Chernihiv who supplied Kulish with dumy for his Zapiski o Yuzhnoi Rusi (Notes on the Southern Rus′). Sreznevsky's forgeries were discovered as early as the second half of the nineteenth century as a result of critical investigations by Kostomarov77 and Drahomanov.78 [. . .]

Zaporozhskaya Starina was a very popular work and although it spread incorrect information about the Zaporozhians it helped to arouse wide public interest in Ukrainian history. It has no scholar­ly value.

Osyp Bodyansky (1808‑1876) was born in Varva in the Lokhvytsya District into a family of modest means having clergy and land­owner ancestry. He was educated at the Seminary at Pereyaslav, and later at Moscow University from which he graduated in 1834. Even in Pereyaslav Bodyansky showed great interest in Slavic studies; he also learned Polish and Serbian. In 1837 Bodyansky defended his dissertation on the "Folk Poetry of Slavic peoples," and was afterwards sent to the Slavic lands. After his return in 1842 he was appointed professor of "Slavic Dialects" at Moscow University.

 p127  Bodyansky was also interested in Ukrainian literature. A sincere Ukrainian patriot, he was an enthusiastic student of Ukrainian folklore and history. While still a student, Bodyansky wrote Ukrainian verses and published them in the Moscow Journal Molva (1833) under the pseudonym Boda Varvynets'. Later, under the pen name I. Mastak, he published articles on Ukrainian literature in the Uchenyya Zapiski of Moscow University and in 1835 he published a book Naśki ukrayins'ki kazky zaporozhtsya Is'ka Materynky, Moscow, which is a translation in verse of Ukrainian fables. He ended his introduction to this book with the words of a folksong "Sabres are rusty, rifles are triggerless, but the heart of the Cossack does not fear the Turks." In 1835 Bodyansky published in Uchenyya Zapiski an article "O drevnem yazyke yuzhnykh i severnykh rusov" (About the Ancient Languages of the South and North Rusy). In 1845 Bodyansky edited D. Zubrytsky's Kritiko-istoricheskaya povest' Chervonoi ili Galitskoi Rusi (A Critical Historical Tale of the Red or Galician Rus′).

As a Slavist Bodyansky rendered great service to Russian and Ukrainian scholar­ship by publishing O vremeni proiskhozhdeniya slavyanskikh pis'men (About the Time of the Origin of Slav Writing) 1855; Izbornik Svyatoslava (The Collection of Svyatoslav); O drevneishem svidetel'stve chto tserkovnyi yazyk yest' slavyano-bolgarskii (The Oldest Evidence that the Church Slavic Language is Slavic-Bulgarian); the Russian edition of Shafarik's works (Slovanské starožitnosti, and Slovanský narodopis); and other works without which, as Drahomanov said, it would be difficult to imagine any progress in Slavic studies.

Bodyansky's main contribution to Ukrainian scholar­ship was as a historian, connected with his activities as secretary of the "Obshchestvo istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh pri Moskovskom universitete" (Society of Russian History and Antiquities at the Moscow University) in 1845‑48, 1849‑76. Bodyansky was the editor of the Society's periodical publication Chteniya, which under his influence became for some time a journal of Ukrainian studies.

 p128  In 1846 Bodyansky printed Istoriya Rusov in Chteniya (No. 1‑4, and separately) and though many people doubted whether the censor­ship would let it pass, the famous history appeared complete, marking a triumph for Ukrainian historiography. Later, from the manuscript sent by P. Kulish, he published Letopis' Samovidtsa o voinakh Bogdana Khmelnitskago i o mezhdousobitsakh byvshikh v Maloi Rossii po ego smerti (The Chronicle of Samovydets' of the Wars of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Of the Internecine Strife in Little Russia after His Death), Chteniya, 1846, No. 1‑2, and separately, ii+152+vi pp.

Most Ukrainian monuments were published in Chteniya between 1847‑48:

1. Letopisnoe povestvovanie o Maloi Rossii (A Narrative Chronicle of Little Russia) by A. Rigelman.

2. Kratkaya istoriya o buntakh Khmelnitskago i o voine s tataramy, shvedami i ugrami (A Short History of Khmelnytsky's Rebellion and of the War against the Tatars, Swedes, and Hungarians), Chteniya, 1847, and separately, Moscow, 1847, ii+56 pp. This is a translation from the anonymous Polish work Historya o buntach Chmielnickiego, o wojnie z Tatarami, ze Szwedami i z Wegrami za króla Władisława i Jana Kazimierza przez lat dwanaście krótko zebrana, ab anno 1647 anno 1648, published in Breslau, in 1842.

3. Kratkoe istoricheskoe opisanie o kozatskom malorossiiskom narode (A Brief Description of the Cossack Little Russian People) by P. Symnovosky.

4. Istoriya o kozakakh zaporozhskikh (A History of the Zaporozhian Cossacks) by Prince Myshetsky.

5. Istoricheskie sochineniya o Malorossii i Malorossiyanakh G. F. Millera (Historical Works on Little Russia and Little Russians by G. F. Miller), Chteniya, 1847, vi+92 pp.

6. Perepiska i drugiya bumagi shvedskago korolya Karla XII, pol'skago Stanilavaº Leshchinskago, tatarskago khana, turetskago sultana, general'nago pisarya F. Orlika i kievskago voevody Iosifa Pototskago (Correspondence and Other Papers of the Swedish King, Charles XII, the Polish King, Stanislaw Leszczynski, the Tatar Khan, the Turkish Sultan, the Secretary General,  p129 F. Orlyk, and the Kiev voyevoda, I. Pototsky), Chteniya, 1847, No. 1.

7. Pis'ma gr. Golovkina k getmanu Skoropadskomu (Letters of Count Golovkin to Hetman Skoropadsky), ibid.

8. M. Markov, "O dostopamyatnostyakh Chernigova," ibid., and his "Otvety na nekotorye voprosy o Maloi Rossii" (Answers to Some Questions on Little Russia), ibid.

9. Zapiska Preosv. Koniskago o tom, chto v Rossii do kontsa XVI v. ne bylo unii s rimskoi Tserkov'yu (A Note from the Most Reverend Konysky that there was no Union with the Roman Church before the XVI Century), Chteniya, 1847, No. 8.

10. Dve gramoty tsarya Alekseya Mikhailovicha o malorossiiskikh kozakakh k voevodam 1651 g. (Two Decrees of the Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich to the Voyevodas on the Little Russian Cossacks in 1651), Chteniya, 1847, No. 7.

11. O meste progrebeniya getmana I. Skoropadskago (The Place of Burial of Hetman I. Skoropadsky), ibid., No. 9.

12. Pis'mo koshevogo Gordienka k Voevode Kamennago Zatona, D. Shenshinu 1704 g. (A Letter of the Koshovyi Hordiyenko to the Voyevoda of the Kamennyi Zaton, D. Shenshin in 1704), ibid.

13. O bunte goroda Pinska i usmirenii onago v 1648 g. (The Rebellion of the Town of Pinsk and Its Suppression in 1648), ibid.

14. Povest' o tom, chto sluchilos' na Ukraine . . . azh do smerti B. Khmelnitskago (A History of Real Events in the Ukraine . . . up to Khmelnytsky's Death), Chteniya, 1848, No. 5.

15. Pis'ma k getmanu Mazepe ob ego sestre g‑zhe Voinarovskoi (Letters of Hetman Mazepa about His Sister, Mrs. Voynarovska), Chteniya, 1848, No. 5.

16. Pis'ma getmana Mazepy k gosudaryam Ivanu i Petru Alekseevicham (Letters of Hetman Mazepa to the Tsars Ivan and Peter Alekseevich), Chteniya, 1848, No. 5.

17. Kratkoe istoricheskoe opisanie o Maloi Rossii do 1765 s dopolneniyami o zaporozhskikh kozakakh 1789 (A Brief Historical  p130 Description of Little Russia to 1765 with Supplement Concerning the Zaporozhian Cossacks 1789), Chteniya, 1848, No. 5.

18. Nachalo Unii (The Beginning of the Union) by D. Zubrytsky, Chteniya, 1848, No. 7.

19. Letopisets o pervom zachatii i sozdanii svyatyya obiteli monastyra Gustynskago (A Chronicle of the First Beginnings and the Erection of the Hustyn Monastery), Chteniya 1848, No. 8.

20. Opisanie o Maloi Rossii i Ukraine, (A Description of Little Russia and the Ukraine) by S. Zarulski, Chteniya, 1848, No. 8.

21. Pis'ma Petra I k getmanu Skoropadskomu (The Letters of Peter I to Hetman Skoropadsky), ibid.

22. Malorossiiskaya perepiska, khranyashchayasya v arkhive Moskovskoi Oruzhenoi Palaty (The Little Russian Correspondence, Preserved in the Archives of the Moscow Oruzheinaya Palata), ibid.

23. O pervykh getmanakh malorossiiskikh (The First Little Russian Hetmans) by N. Markevich, Chteniya, 1848, No. 9.

24. Zamechaniya do Maloi Rossii prinadlezhashchiya (Notes Relating to Little Russia), Chteniya, 1848, No. 10.

25. Pis'ma k getmanu Skoropadskomu ot tsaritsy Ekateriny Alekseevny i tsareven (Letters to Hetman Skoropadsky from Tsarina Catherine Alekseevna and Princesses), ibid.

26. Akty, ob'yasnyayuschchie istoriyu Malorossii i otkrytye N. Markevichem (Documents Explaining the History of Little Russia, Discovered by N. Markevich), ibid.

The publication of so many Ukrainian materials evoked sharp protest from Russian scholars. Following the printing in Chteniya of Fletcher's travel notes in Muscovy in the sixteenth century, Bodyansky was suspended as secretary of the Society. Fletcher's Notes, which painted Muscovy in very dark colors, were held to be unsuitable for publication, and blame for their appearance was attributed to Bodyansky, the editor. Chteniya ceased publication and Bodyansky was ordered to be transferred to Kazan. However, he resisted the transfer and in 1849 he was allowed to remain in Moscow. In 1849‑58 Vremennik was published  p131 instead of Chteniya, and in 1858 Chteniya was again allowed to appear with Bodyansky as editor (until 1876).

In 1847 Chteniya printed "Ukrainskiya narodnyya predaniya" (Ukrainian Folk Legends) by P. Kulish, but this was not allowed to be sold because of the trial of the Brotherhood of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. They were later printed by Kulish in Zapiski o Yuzhnoi Rusi.

In later Chteniyas there appeared the Diariush of M. Khanenko, (1858‑59); Istochniki malorossiiskoi istorii by Bantysh-Kamensky (1858) in two vols.; Reestra vsego Voiska Zaporozhskago v 1649 godu (The Register of the Entire Zaporozhian Host in 1649), 1874, and separately, 1875; and Narodnyya pesni Galitskoi i Ugorskoi Rusi (The Folksongs of the Galician and Hungarian Rus′) by Yakiv Holovatsky, in three volumes, published in 1878, after the death of Bodyansky.

Bodyansky's activity in the "Obshchestva istorii i drevnostei" was of the greatest value to Ukrainian historiography. It was due to his efforts that a series of most important sources of Ukrainian history (Istoriya Rusov, the History of Rigelman and the Chronicle of Samovydets') became available in scholar­ly editions. This enabled the scholars to use these sources in further research.


A. Pypin, Istoriya russkoi etnografii, t. III, Malorusskaya etnografiya. St. Petersburg, 1891; M. Hrushevsky, "Stolittya ukrains'koho narodnystva," Pervisne hromadyanstvo ta yoho perezhytky na Ukrayini, 1927, I‑III, Kiev.

Literature on M. Maksymovych:

S. Ponomarev, "M. A. Maksimovich, biograficheskii i istoriko-literaturnyi ocherk," Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniya, 1871, X; Yubilei M. A. Maksimovicha (1821‑1871) (a symposium), Kiev, 1871; M. Drahomanov, Obituary of Maksymovych in Vestnik Evropy, 1874, III, (reprinted in his Rozvidky pro ukrayins'ku narodnu slovesnist', Lviv, 1898); N. Petrov, Ocherki ukrainskoi literatury XIX st., Kiev, 1884; V. Naumenko, articles on Maksymovych in Kievskaya Starina, 1893, 1898, and  p132 1899; A. Hrushevsky, "M. A. Maksimovich," Izvestya Otdeleniya russkago yazyka i slovesnosti Imp. Akademii Nauk, 1906, I, pp375‑416; V. Danilov," 'Kievlyanin' Maksimovicha," ibid., 1909, III.

Literature on I. Sreznevsky:

V. Lamansky, "I. I. Sreznevsky (1812‑1880)," Istoricheskaya zapiska o deyatel'nosti Moskovskago Arkheologicheskago Obshchestva, Moscow, 1890; Pamyati Izmaila Ivanovicha Sreznevskago, Book I, Petrograd, 1916; A. Shamray, "Literaturnyi hurtok I. Sreznevs'koho," Kharkivs'ka shkola romantykiv, v. I, Kharkiv, 1930.

Literature on I. Bodyansky:

N. Vasylenko, "I. M. Bodyansky i ego ucheno-literaturnaya deyatel'nost," Kievskaya Starina, 1903, and separately; correspondence between Bodyansky and Kulish (1846‑1877) in Kievskaya Starina, 1898, II.

Mykola Kostomarov (1817‑1885) was born in the village of Yurasovka in the Ostrohozhsk District of the Province of Voronizh. His father was a land­owner, his mother a peasant serf. Kostomarov was educated in the Gymnasium at Voronizh and at Kharkiv University from which he graduated in 1838. For some time he served in the Dragoon Regiment, but his interest in scholar­ship proved stronger. He returned to Kharkiv and in 1842 printed his O znachenii Unii v Zapadnoi Rossii (The Significance of the Union in Western Russia) which he intended to defend as his Master's thesis. Through the opposition of the local clergy, his thesis was rejected and even destroyed.79 Kostomarov was forced to write a thesis on a different topic, which  p133 he completed in 1844 — "Ob istoricheskom znachenii russkoi narodnoi poezii" (The Historical Significance of Russian Folk Poetry).

Later Kostomarov was appointed to a teaching post in Rivne; in 1846 he became a professor of "Russian History" at the University of Kiev.

Kharkiv, with its university established in 1805 at the expense of the local nobility, sons and grandsons of the Cossack starshyna, became in the early nineteenth century the cultural center for the Left-Bank Ukraine. The ideas of a Slavic renascence became popular here at a very early date, while a romantic enthusiasm for the people and an interest in ethnography helped to stimulate Ukrainian cultural life. Three Ukrainian journals (Ukrainskii Vestnik, Ukrainian Messenger, 1816‑1819; Ukrainskii Zhurnal, Ukrainian Journal, 1824‑25; and Ukrainskii Al'manakh, Ukrainian Almanac, 1831) were published in Kharkiv. They printed articles on Ukrainian history and Ukrainian poems by P. Artemovsky-Hulak, who for a time was the rector of the University. The Ukrainian poet and ethnographer, A. Metlynsky, was professor of literature at the University; Professor Sreznevsky was publishing his Zaporozhskaya Starina; while in 1834 there appeared the first Ukrainian literary almanac, Utrennaya Zvezda, which was followed by the almanacs Snip and Molodyk.

Kostomarov's student days were spent in this atmosphere of Slavic and Ukrainian renascence. He became an ardent believer in both of them, and started to write in Ukrainian, to record folksongs and to learn Slavic languages and folk poetry. In 1838 he published his historical drama Sava Chalyi, in 1839 Ukrayins'ki Balady, and in 1840 the book Vitka. In Molodyk Kostomarov printed his first survey of Ukrainian literature, written from the viewpoint of the Slavic revival. During his stay in Volynia, Kostomarov recorded many songs and visited historical sites. In Volynia, and still more in Kiev, Kostomarov acquainted himself with Polish revolutionary propaganda. It was under its influence that he conceived of a secret Ukrainian organization, which was later founded under the name of the Brotherhood of Sts. Cyril and Methodius (Kyrylo-Metodiivs'ke Bratstvo). Apart from  p134 Kostomarov, Mykola Hulak, Vasyl' Bilozersky, and many others were members of this society, while Shevchenko and Kulish were closely associated with it. The political ideal of the Brotherhood was a free federation of all Slavic peoples, and its practical aim was a Ukrainian national revival through emancipation of the peasantry.

Kostomarov's ideas of that time found their most striking manifestation in his Knyhy Bytiya ukrayins'koho narodu (Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People) which he wrote under the influence of Mickiewicz's Księgi narodu polskiego i pielgrzymstwa polskiego. Written in Biblical style, it is a survey of Ukrainian history from the point of view of republican democracy, Pan‑Slavism and Ukrainian messianism. The work ends with this prophecy: "The Ukraine shall rise from her grave and shall call on all her Slavic brothers, and they will all rise . . . And the Ukraine will be an independent republic in a Slav Union. Then all will say, pointing to the place on the map showing the Ukraine, behold, the stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. "80

 p135  As a result of the uncovering of the organization of the Brotherhood of Sts. Cyril and Methodius by the Russian government in the spring of 1847, Kostomarov was arrested and imprisoned in Petropavlovskaya Fortress. He was later deported to Saratov, where he was forced to serve as a clerk until 1856. It was at that time that he devoted himself to the study of history, concentrating especially on the period of Khmelnytsky. His first articles — "Pervye voiny malorossiiskikh kozakov" (The First Wars of the Little Russian Cossacks), Molodyk, 1842, III; "Mysli ob istorii Malorossii" (Thoughts about Little Russian History), Biblioteka dlya chteniya, 1846, No. 9; and "Ivan Svirgovsky,81 ukrainskii getman XVI v." (Ivan Svirhovsky, a Ukrainian Hetman in the Sixteenth Century), Moskvityanin, 1855, No. 19‑20 — are still reminiscent of earlier historiographies with their reliance on Istoriya Rusov and the Chronicles. Only with the publication of new source material in Chteniya and Pamyatniki, and through the Polish historical publications which were sent to him in Saratov by his Polish friends, did Kostomarov enlarge his historical horizon. His work culminated in the large monograph Bogdan Khmelnitsky i vozvrashchenie Yuzhnoi Rusi k Rossii (Bohdan Khmelnytsky and the Return of the Southern Rus′ to Russia), which was published in the Otechestvennyya Zapiski, 1857, I‑VII with an introduction "Bor'ba ukrainskikh kozakov s Pol'sheyu v pervoi polovine XVII v. do B. Khmelnitskago."82 In 1859 this work appeared in book form, entitled Bogdan Khmelnitsky (2 vols.). A third edition of this work was published in 1876, (3 vols.).

The new tsar granted amnesty to Kostomarov, and in 1859 he was appointed professor at St. Petersburg University and was able to use both domestic and foreign sources in his further  p136 research. With the founding of the Ukrainian monthly Osnova (1861‑1862), the period of greatest achievement by this distinguished scholar began. Osnova published the following studies by Kostomarov:

"Mysli o federativnom nachale v drevnei Rusi" (Thoughts of the Federal Principle in the Ancient Rus′); "Dve russkiya narodnosti" (Two Russian Nationalities); "Cherty narodnoi yuzhnorusskoi istorii" (Features of South Russian Popular History); "Getmanstvo Vygovskago" (The Hetman Rule of Vyhovsky); "Getmanstvo Yuriya Khmelnitskago" (The Hetman Rule of Yuri Khmelnytsky); and some journalistic articles. [. . .]

Kostomarov's views of history were formed at a time when he was enthusiastic in defense of ethnography as a no less genuine source for the study of history than historical documents and "dry chronicles" . . . In an article "Ob otnoshenii russkoi istorii k etnografii" (The Relation­ship of Russian History to Ethnography) Kostomarov maintained that the task of history is not only to recreate an external picture of the past, but to delve into the internal life and to sense "the psychology of the past." [. . .]

Having placed the community, and therefore the people, as the center of historical studies, Kostomarov paid great attention to ethnography. History and ethnography, he held, are complimentary; a historian explores the past of the people and an ethnographer is interested in its present; yet each has much to learn from the other. The characteristics of the present conditions of a people have meaning only if regarded as a product of past forces in that nation. Both ethnographers and historians often make the same error: they consider the material for the topic as if it were the topic itself. Notes or descriptions which related to the customs of a people were classed as ethnography. Yet what was forgotten was that the main object of ethnography, this "science about the people, is the people themselves — not their external manifestations."

Kostomarov believed that not only the life of the peasants but also of the other social classes should become the object of ethnographic studies. The province of ethnography should, in his opinion, embrace the law, politics, and all events which affect  p137 the life of a society . . . His conclusion was that "an ethnographer should be a contemporary historian and a historian should deal in his works with the ethnography of the past."

Kostomarov's view of Ukrainian history is most evident in the articles he contributed to Osnova. In his treatise "Mysli o federativnom nachale v drevnei Rusi" (Osnova, 1861, I) Kostomarov developed the theory that in the first period of Ukrainian history, during the viche (assembly) system, the Rus′ State consisted of a federation of six nationalities: Ukrainian, Siverian, Russian, Byelorussian, and the peoples of Pskov and Novgorod. The common ties uniting them all was one language and similar customs, one dynasty, one Christian faith and the Church. Each nationality lived on its own land, and they were all united in one federation [. . .]. The middle of the twelfth century may be regarded as a period when the policies of the Princes satisfied the aspirations of the separate ethnic units for autonomy within this federative state — the Rus′, or "Ruśka Zemlya." "Both natural and historical circumstances prompted the Rus′ people to remain independent in their own lands, yet united in this federation. Rus′, therefore, was on the way to a federation, when the Tatar onslaught completely changed the system of our social and political life."

The article "Dve russkiya narodnosti," (Osnova, 1861, III) discusses the relations between Ukrainians and Russians and stresses the differences which exist between the two peoples, formed during the course of history:

The Ukrainians are characterized by individualism, the Great Russians by collectivism . . . In the political sphere, the Ukrainians were able to create among themselves free forms of society which were controlled no more than was required for their very existence, and yet they were strong in themselves without infringing on personal liberties. The Great Russians attempted to build on a firm foundation a collective structure permeated by one spirit. The striving of the Ukrainians was towards federation, that of the Great Russians towards autocracy and a firm monarchy.

The Great Russian element has in it something grand and creative: the spirit of totality, the consciousness of unity, the rule of practical reason. The Great Russian can live through all adversities  p138 and select the hour when action is most fitting and circumstances most favorable.

The Ukrainians lack such qualities. Their free spontaneity led them either to the destruction of social forms or to a whirlpool of strivings which dissipated national efforts in all directions. Such testimony about these two peoples is provided by history.

In their efforts to fulfill an ideal, once and for all, and in a concrete form, the Great Russian people are inclined to materialism and lag behind the Ukrainians as far as spiritual life and poetry is concerned . . . As in the social, so in the family life of the Great Russians there is little of what constitutes poetry in the life of the Ukrainians . . .

A Great Russian cares little for nature. The Great Russian peasants do not like to plant flowers in their gardens; in the Ukraine every peasant cottage is full of flowers. Moreover, the Great Russian is often an enemy of vegetation. I have seen peasants cut down all the trees around their houses . . . believing that they would not look good among trees. Even the educated people whom I have met are indifferent to the beauty of nature.

The Great Russians are deficient in imagination; they have few superstitions but many prejudices. On the other hand, it is at once apparent that the Ukrainians have many superstitions, especially in the Western Ukraine. There, in almost every house you can hear a poetic tale of how the dead ones come to life again in different disguises . . . Charms, with their quaint customs, the world of ghosts in varying shapes and apparitions to make the hair stand on end — all blend in artistic pictures. Sometimes the story-tellers themselves do not believe what they tell, yet as long as they have a sense of beauty, they will continue to transform the old content into an ever new form.

. . . In Great Russia the people believe in devils, witches, demons — beliefs which they inherited from earlier times. They have very few fantastic tales, even the devils and demons are materialistic in Great Russian tales . . .

In their social beliefs the Great Russians are different from Ukrainians as a result of their different historic heritage. The urge to unite individual parts into a whole, the denial of personal interests in the name of social good, the highest respect for social judgment — all these features manifest themselves in the large family life of the Great Russians and in their sacrifices for the community (mir). A Great Russian family is one unit, with property in common . . .

The Ukrainians, on the other hand, hate this system . . . A common duty, not voluntarily undertaken but inevitable, they regard  p139 as a great burden, while among the Great Russians these duties substitute their strivings for personal liberty.

Compulsory common use of the land and responsibility of all for one appear to a Ukrainian to be the worst and most unjust kind of servitude. His history has not taught him to suppress his feeling for private property or to regard himself as a servant of some abstract commune and be responsible for other members of i.

The relations between the Ukrainians and the Poles are quite different. If, linguistically, Ukrainians are less close to the Poles than they are to the Great Russians, in national character they are more akin to the Poles . . .

To be sure, there is a deep gulf which separates the Poles and the Ukrainians, a gulf which may never be bridged. Poles and Ukrainians are like two branches growing in opposite directions; one is pruned and has borne refined fruit — the nobility; the other produced peasantry. To put it more bluntly: the Poles are aristocratic while the Ukrainians are a democratic people. Yet these two labels do not reflect the histories of the two peoples; the Polish aristocracy is very democratic; the Ukrainian democracy is very aristocratic. The Polish nobility has tried to remain within the limitations of its own class; in the Ukraine, on the other hand, the people have equal status and rights and often produce individuals who climb much higher and attain or for themselves, but in turn are again absorbed by the mass of the people from which they stem. Here and there this struggle often weakens the social structure, providing an opportunity for another people, who know the value of a strong community, to seize it . . .

This article by Kostomarov was very popular and was for a long time regarded as "the gospel of Ukrainian nationalism."

In "Cherty narodnoi yuzhno-russkoi istorii" (Characteristics of National History of South Russia), Osnova, 1861, Kostomarov has, in the opinion of Drahomanov, "gathered the threads of the history of the Kievan pre‑Mongolian Rus′ and the Cossack Ukraine" in an attempt to show the continuity of the national ideals and forms of social organization in all the periods of Ukrainian history.

Kostomarov also expressed his views on Ukrainian history in many of his journalistic writings, defending Ukrainian rights against Russian and Polish appetites. In the article "Pravda Moskvicham o Rus" (The Truth About Rus′ Told to the Muscovites) Kostomarov debates with the Russian journalists, who  p140 attacked his "Two Russian Nationalities" and he accuses them of Muscovite exclusiveness. In his article "Pravda Polyakam o Rusi" (The Truth about Rus′ Told to the Poles) he opposes Duchinski's theory of the Turanian origins of the Great Russians and denies Polish claims to Ukrainian lands, which they advanced on so‑called "historical grounds" and old treaties, i.e., "the marriage of Yahaylo (Jagiello), the Lublin and Berestya Unions, old Andrusiv and Moscow treaties, by means of which the Polish patriots are attempting to claim Ukrainian territory. These claims have no validity. One can write books about all these things, learned treatises and lectures; much of this material of the past can serve as a subject for painters, dramatists, novelists, or opera composers, but it cannot be used as a basis for the practical solution of our international relations." These relations, Kostomarov claimed, can only be settled on the basis of a just social order, national liberty and democracy.

Kostomarov's article "Ukraina" (Ukraine), which appeared anonymously in Herzen's Kolokol (Bell), No. 61, in 1860,83 was even more outspoken on the history of the Ukraine and her two neighbors — Russia and Poland. The account of Ukrainian history given here by Kostomarov is, to use Shevchenko's words, like "the poem of a free people." The Ukrainian people always appears to be permeated by a freedom-loving spirit. Kostomarov thought it was a credit to the Ukrainian Church that all elements connected with the nobility and those having privileges abandoned the Church. The fact that in the seventeenth century the Ukrainians failed to rebuild their state, Kostomarov explains as due to the desertion of the Ukrainian upper classes who became "intoxicated" with Polish ideas, so hostile to the Ukrainian people [. . .]

He categorically rejects the Polish and Russian claims to Ukrainian territory. "The disputed territories do not belong to either of the claimants; they belong to the people who have inhabited them since time immemorial and who live and work in  p141 them now." Kostomarov envisaged the future of the Ukraine as a member of a Slav federation: "On the territory where the people speak Ukrainian," he wrote, "our Southern Rus′ should form its state which would be a member of the Slav Union, which we hope for and believe in, and would preserve its individuality, not based on a principle of centralization but on equal rights." The article ends with the admonition that "neither the Russians nor the Poles should call their own the land settled by our people."

Kostomarov ceased to lecture in 1861 and from that time on he devoted himself to study and research, as a member of the Archeographic Commission in St. Petersburg, and edited Akty Yuzhnoi i Zapadnoi Rossii (The Documents of Southern and Western Russia). Some of his monographs dating from that time are based on the work he did for the Commission.

Continuing his work on the history of the Ukraine, Kostomarov wrote his monograph on the Ruyina (the reign of Bryukhovetsky, Mnohohrishny, Samoylovych), first printed in Vestnik Evropy, 1879‑80; and "Mazepa i Mazepintsy" (Mazepa and Mazepists), Russkaya Mysl', 1882‑84; as well as some shorter articles on Polubotok, and on B. Khmelnytsky as an ally of Turkey. In the last years of his life Kostomarov wrote his Russkaya istoria v zhizne­opisaniyakh eya vazhneishikh deyatelei (1874‑76) which gave the biographies of Volodymyr the Great, Yaroslav the Wise, King Danylo, Petro Mohyla, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Galyatovsky, Radyvylovsky, Baranovych, Dmytro Rostovsky, and Mazepa.84

Remaining faithful to his belief in the value of ethnography, Kostomarov frequently returned to ethnographical materials and sources. His "Ob istoricheskom znachenii yuzhnorusskago pesnotvorchestva" (Of the Historical Significance of South Russian Folksongs), Beseda, 1872, repeats the central opinions expressed in his doctoral dissertation. He even attempted to write a history of the Cossack period based on the folksongs: "Istoriya kozachestva  p142 v yuzhnorusskikh narodnykh pesnyakh" (The History of the Cossacks in South Russian Folksongs), Russkaya Mysl', 1880‑83. In spite of the fact that he used many folksongs for this purpose, the work is of little value, since the author was not critical of his material and accepted as Ukrainian many of the folksongs which are of a common Slavic heritage. In this work he was also hindered by censor­ship which banned some passages from the folksongs.

Kostomarov did not confine himself to Ukrainian history. He wrote several works on Russian and Polish history, while still being primarily interested in popular mass movements and revolutions. In 1859 he published Bunt Sten'ki Razina (The Rebellion of Stenka Razin) in which he depicts the struggle of the Don Cossacks against the Muscovite State. Kostomarov's Severno-russkiya narodopravstva (Democracy in Northern Russia), comprising the history of the republics of Novgorod, Pskov, and Vyatka, in which Kostomarov saw an analogy with the pre‑Mongolian Rus′, and later, the Cossack Ukraine, was published in 1863. In his studies — Nachalo edinoderzhaviya v drevnei Rusi (The Beginning of the Monarchy in Ancient Rus′), Kulikovskaya bitva (The Battle of Kulikovo), and Ivan Susanin — Kostomarov analyzes certain episodes from the history of Muscovy, and explodes the legends which Russian historiography had formed around Dmitrii Donskoi or Susanin. Kostomarov's criticism was not well received in Russia. Kostomarov painted in equally dark colors the life in Muscovy in Ocherk domashnei zhizni i nravov velikorusskago naroda v XVI i XVII stol. (A Survey of Domestic Life and Customs of the Great Russian People in the XVI and XVII Centuries), 1860, and Smutnoe Vremya v Moskovskom Gosudarstve (The Time of Troubles in the Moscow State), 1866. Kostomarov devoted his monograph Poslednie gody Rechi Pospolitoi (The Last Years of the Rzecz Pospolita), 1869‑70, to the history of Poland analyzing the cause of Poland's downfall which he attributed to her aristocracy — the epitome of her national spirit.

Kostomarov approached the study of great national movements in the Ukraine, sometimes social and sometimes religious in origin and frequently directed against the state, from the point  p143 of view of a republican and a democrat. His opinion on the respective merits of the monarchical and the republican systems was most succinctly expressed in Bohdan Khmelnitsky:

A monarchy with all its possible evils — its servitude, injustice, licentiousness, and ignorance — has this advantage, that if the ruling power happens to fall into the hands of a wise man, then reforms and changes for the better are possible. A bad republic, on the other hand, is doomed. The republican system is undoubtedly the best and most desirable, but it must be accompanied by what is best in humanity: equal rights, social justice, and cultural advancement. If these qualities are absent, the republican system leads to ruin and, sooner or later, such a state will either cease to be a republic, or will fall under foreign domination. There is no force which can save a bad republic from disintegration.85

Kostomarov, therefore, did not sympathize with the absolutist tendencies of the old Princes and later of the Cossack Hetmans, who attempted to create a state founded on the privileged Cossack class. Himself holding a rather vague notion of Slav federation (perhaps even under the crown of the tsar), Kostomarov failed to see in the history of the Cossack Ukraine any urge to create a state, and explained the politics of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Vyhovsky, Doroshenko, and Mazepa in terms of their personal advantages or in terms of the narrow and selfish interests of the Cossack starshyna. This is why Kostomarov showed a preference for the Zaporozhian Cossacks who held no clear political ideal, but were ready to rebel against any hetman whom they regarded as insufficiently democratic. Vyhovsky, Doroshenko, and above all, Mazepa, are painted in dark colors. The implication of Kostomarov's monographs is that the Ukrainian people were incapable of forming a better state organization than that of the Zaporozhian Sich, and since such a state could last only for a short time, there was no choice but to seek the protection of Moscow, whose despotism and lack of culture Kostomarov deplored.

Kostomarov failed to recognize the great efforts made by Khmelnytsky to organize a state, and in his monograph the  p144 figure of that great hetman appears weak and lifeless; it is almost completely overshadowed by elemental mass movements. Later, having gained access to the documents which clarified Khmelnytsky's relations with Turkey, Kostomarov revised his view of him (see his article, "Bohdan Khmelnytsky-dannik Ottomanskoi Porty"). "Now," he wrote, "the historical significance of Khmelnytsky should appear in a different light. His successors, Bryukhovetsky, Doroshenko, and Orlyk, and other less distinguished Cossack leaders, did not contradict Khmelnytsky's policy when they strove for the creation of a Ukrainian state under the authority of the Ottoman Porta. They followed the uneven path of Khmelnytsky, and Yurko Khmelnytsky, who was granted the title of the Prince of the Little Russian Ukraine by the Sultan, was a not unworthy son of his father."

From the point of view of the development and growth of the national idea in the Ukraine, Kostomarov's historical interpretations represent a retrogression if we compare them with those of the author of Istoriya Rusov, whom Kostomarov chided for his "anti-democratic" spirit. Kostomarov's ideas were very favorably received by the Ukrainians and the Russians in the 1860's and 1870's. They liked his Populism and his glorification of popular mass movements and their leaders. Yet from the point of view of the development of a national consciousness Kostomarov's ideas obscured the outlines of the Ukrainian historical tradition, as it was postulated by Ukrainian historians in the early nineteenth century. Behind his authority and his views expressed in the 1880's in Vestnik Evropy (The Messenger of Europe), wherein he attempted to pacify the Russian government by assuring it that the Ukrainian movement was harmless, there lay concealed those Russophiles who attempted to relegate any interest in the Ukraine's past to the level of a bookish preoccupation.

Kostomarov was famous for his style which gained him great popularity among his readers. Influenced by the Romantic movement, he believed that a historian's task was not only to teach but also "to paint the history of the past so as to awaken the interest of the reader." Kostomarov had a really creative imagination. He was never satisfied with a "dry" exposition, but always  p145 attempted to portray the past artistically. His historical monographs are dramatized chronicles. Not satisfied with scholar­ship alone, Kostomarov sometimes turned to the writing of poetry and of prose. His historical novel Chernigovka (1881), depicting the times of Doroshenko, is of real interest.

In spite of some drawbacks, Kostomarov's writings were tremendously significant for the development of Ukrainian historiography. "Before Kostomarov," writes V. Antonovych, "specialized historical science hardly existed in the Ukraine. It was still very chaotic, enveloped in prejudices and fictional hypotheses which were largely borrowed from Istoriya Rusov [. . .] Kostomarov was the first to collect and rely entirely on the original sources; he never used secondary sources or earlier histories. He trusted only those materials he found in archives and collections. Those he analyzed very carefully and only after thorough and critical scrutiny did he use them to write the history of an event, a period, or a personage. His great gift lay in his ability to portray everything artistically, and all his readers enjoyed his works. The happy combination of these qualities in Kostomarov was very rare among historians. Perhaps in Western Europe the closest to him was the Frenchman, Augustin Thierry. "86

The edition of Akty otnosyashchiesya k istorii Yuzhnoi i Zapadnoi Rossii, sobrannye i izdannye Arkheograficheskoi Komissieyu, St. Petersburg, 1861‑1878, which Kostomarov published in ten volumes, is of great value. His materials were drawn from Dela Malorossiiskago Prikaza, which were preserved in the Archives of the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow.

Apart from that Kostomarov was the editor of the third, fourth and fifth volume of the Trudy (Works) of the ethnographic expedition of P. Chubynsky in the Right-Bank Ukraine (1872, 1874, 1877).87

 p146  Panteleymon Kulish (1819‑1897) was born in the little town of Voronizh, in the Hlukhiv District of the Province of Chernihiv, into the family of a small land­owner of Cossack descent. He was educated in the Gymnasium in Novhorod-Siversky and at Kiev University where he failed to complete the course. In Kiev he made the acquaintance of Professor Maksymovych and under his influence began to write. Kulish's first study, based on folk legends collected in his hometown, was printed by Maksymovych in his Kievlyanin, in 1840. Kulish owed his early interest in Ukrainian ethnography to Maksymovych's influence, although his enthusiasm for folk literature began to show itself while he was still attending the Gymnasium. Without completing his university studies due to financial difficulties, Kulish began teaching, first in Lutsk, in Volynia (1842) and then in Kiev. In 1846 with the assistance of the rector of the university in St. Petersburg, Pletnyov, Kulish received a teaching post in St. Petersburg. In 1847 he married Oleksandra Bilozerska,88 the daughter of a land­owner in Borzna District, the sister of V. Bilozersky, later the publisher of Osnova. In the same year Kulish went abroad to prepare himself for a professor­ship in the field of Slavic studies. However, he was arrested in Warsaw for membership in the Brotherhood of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. After spending several months in the fortress jail, Kulish was banished to Tula and not until 1850 did he receive permission to leave it, though until 1856 he was forbidden to publish anything under his own name. The end of the 1850's and especially the period of his association with the Osnova, marked the peak of Kulish's literary work. At the beginning of the 1860's Kulish gradually transferred his activities to Galicia, where he later made many enemies after radically changing his views on Cossack history. At the beginning of the 1880's, after unsuccess­ful attempts to bring about an understanding between the Poles and the Ukrainians in Galicia, while staying in Lviv (1881‑82), Kulish abandoned his former public activities and settled in  p147 his wife's khutir near Borzna where he lived until his death, working most of the time on Ukrainian translations of the Bible and Western European classics.

Lacking specialized training, as most Ukrainian historiographers of old times, Kulish based his study of Ukrainian history on his deep love for folk poetry, being specially fascinated by its main theme: the Cossack Ukraine. At first he intended to write a "Ukrainian Iliad" and his poem Ukrayina: Od pochatku Ukrayiny azh do bat'ka Khmelnyts'koho (Kiev, 1843) was written with this purpose in mind. In this poem, partly from the folksongs and partly from his own imagination, he recreated the course of Ukrainian history from the invasion of Batyi to the times of Khmelnytsky. The whole work bears a strong resemblance to Sreznevsky's Zaporozhskaya starina and was certainly composed under its influence. At that time Kulish was under the strong spell of Istoriya Rusov and therefore he idealized the Cossack period. He also drew inspiration from the folksongs, many of which he had heard during his travels in the Right-Bank Ukraine. In 1843 Kulish published a historical novel Mikhailo Charnyshenko ili Malorossiya vosem'desyat let nazad (Mykhaylo Charnyshenko or Little Russia Eighty Years Ago), about the last days of Hetman Ukraine, in which the action takes place in the neighborhood of Hlukhiv so familiar to the author from the time of his youth.

Kulish's brief stay in Volynia and his later acquaintance with the Polish writers, M. Grabowski and K. Swidzinksi, both of whom were land­owners in the Ukraine, had opened before him the rich world of Polish historiography which held many sources for the study of Ukrainian history. Even at that time Kulish must have begun to regard Polish domination of the Ukraine not as exploitation but as colonization of the Ukrainian wastelands and their cultural advancement, while the Cossacks were only capable of destruction and showed no creative initiative. In his fascinating novel Chorna Rada, written in the 1840's, Kulish paints Zaporozhe in dark colors, scoring the demagoguery and vulgarity while idealizing the representative of the cultured starshyna class, the appointed Hetman Somko. Yet his Povest' ob  p148 ukrainskom narode (A Tale about Ukrainian People), St. Petersburg, 1846, written for younger people as an epic poem of Ukrainian history, shows that Kulish was still very much under the influence of the older forms of Ukrainian historiography.

The Chronicle of Samovydets', which Kulish found and sent to Bodyansky for publication, helped to dampen his earlier enthusiasm for the Cossacks. During his banishment in Tula, Kulish devoted himself to a prolonged study of history using many books and sources sent to him by Bodyansky. When, in the 1850's, he was allowed to publish, his critical attitude to the Cossack Ukraine had increased considerably. In 1856‑57, with the financial assistance of two Chernihiv land­owners, H. Galagan, and Vasyl' Tarnovsky, Kulish published Zapiski o Yuzhnoi Rusi (Notes about Southern Rus′) in which apart from valuable ethnographical material, he printed historical sources, e.g.O neporyadkakh v Malorossii (On the Disorders in Little Russia) by Hryhoriy Teplov; O prichinakh vzaimnago ozhestocheniya polyakov i malorossiyan v XVII stoletii (The Causes of Mutual Bitterness between the Poles and Little Russians in the XVII Century) by M. Grabowski, documents with notes, all displaying the Hetman State of the eighteenth century and its distinguished leaders, as for instance Pavlo Polubotok, in a very unfavorable light. Kulish's "Epilogue" to his novel Chorna Rada (in Russian translation) gives his views on Russo-Ukrainian relations in the past; the Ukrainians, he believed, proved incapable of creating their own state, and union between the Ukraine and Russia was inevitable and historically justified.

As in the case of Kostomarov (whose friend Kulish became in the 1840's), Kulish reached the peak of his creativeness during the time in which he helped to publish Osnova. In Osnova he printed the first chapter of his Istoriya Ukrayiny od naydavnishykh chasiv (The History of the Ukraine from the Earliest Times), 1861, IX, which was planned as the beginning of a large work, intended not only for the general public but also for those who "are not satisfied with historical artistry and wish to get at the sources themselves." The work was never completed and  p149  only the first part, which is an introduction to early Ukrainian history as far as the eleventh century, exists. In his preface Kulish admits that his history may not be pleasing to all his countrymen, especially to those who are admirers of the Cossack Ukraine. "What if they do not see here the past as usually painted in books? It has become customary to view the whole of our history from the Cossack period. Yet the Cossacks were but the luxuriant flowers and sometimes the thistles amid our wild steppes. Much else also grew, flourished, and died there, and all of it belongs to the history of our Ukraine."

Besides this first chapter of his Ukrainian history, Kulish published in Osnova two popular studies, Khmelnychchyna (The Times of Khmelnytsky), 1861, III, and Vyhov­shchyna (The Times of Vyhovsky), 1861, XI‑XII. They were also intended to be the first in a series of studies of historical periods [. . .] Kulish's general view of Ukrainian history was expressed in scattered writings in Osnova and elsewhere. It can be condensed into two theses: 1) A very critical attitude to the eighteenth century Hetman State, which led him to condone the suppression of this State by the Russian government; 2) An attempt to seek the cultural forces in the seventeenth century Ukrainian history as an antidote to the "wild and ignorant" Cossacks. In one of his novels written in Russian, Ukrainskiya nezabudki (Ukrainian Forget‑Me-Nots), Kulish voiced a strong accusation against the Hetman State in the eighteenth century, describing it as a rotten tree which even if untouched by the Russian government would have fallen apart on its own account because of the indifference of the masses, who were conscious of the yoke only as a result of the selfish policies of the Cossack starshyna. Kulish does not notice any positive qualities in the Ukrainian aristocracy of the eighteenth century which was descended from the Cossacks. He also opposed the traditional portrayal of the Polish and Polonized landlords. "In Ukrainian as well as in Great Russian literature," he wrote in a footnote to his poem Velyki provody, "it has become an established custom to portray the old Polish and Ukrainian landlords as barbarians. Yet many of these landlords  p150 and nobles represent the finest example of humanitarianism, if looked at from an aristocratic point of view. That is why such a figure as Yarema Vyshnevetsky is even now considered to be the pride of the conservative Poles. They were real heroes of their convictions." (Osnova, 1861, I, pp65‑66). Finding it difficult to see ideal representatives of his "spiritual heroes," and "cultured masterminds" among the seventeenth century Ukrainians, Kulish invented in his poem Velyki provody a Cossack Holka [. . .] who lives in 1648 and is endowed by Kulish with some of the qualities of Yuriy Nemyrych,89 yet this character is so idealized and generalized that he fails to be convincing.

Kulish's studies in the 1860's, while working at the St. Petersburg Public Library and in the Warsaw archives and libraries, further strengthened his negative view of the Cossack period. His passionate temperament and political ardor led him to express his views, regarded by many as "national treason," very sharply and uncompromisingly.

Only in two fragmentary studies in Ukrainian history [. . .] did Kulish preserve an absolute detachment and objectivity. They were: "Ruyina" (Meta, 1863, No. 2, 1864, No. 5), and "Pochyny lykholittya lyads'koho i pervi kozats'ki buchi" (The Origins of the Polish Time of Troubles and the First Cossack Rebellions) Nyva, 1865. For Kulish the "Ruyina" (Ruin) was the history of the rule and decay of the nobility and gentry on both banks of the Dnieper." He hoped that a clever reader of his work "might realize how wretched was the civilization which benefited only the upper class, giving it freedom, power, and wealth by taking these from others, and made a snare out of Catholicism so that people who accepted it were forever ostracized by their fellow countrymen." Kulish deplored the domination of "the landlord class which flourished at the cost of the millions of peasants who were left in dark ignorance and poverty." Therefore he is indifferent to the downfall of Rzecz Pospolita, this "Polish civilization in the Ukraine." In this  p151 respect the Cossacks appear in a favorable light. "Under Cossack banners," he wrote, "our Rus′, so slighted by her neighbors, showed to the whole world in the seventeenth century that she could free herself from her rapacious occupants and put the people's will above politics . . . The great Cossack wars strengthened our ties with our ancient history, which the academicians of our neighbors accept as their own, without mentioning our past . . . This is why we should honor the Cossack glory in our works. Like the common people who sing of the Cossacks in their songs, we honor the deeds of the past by our scholar­ly endeavors."

However, Kulish pleaded for the greatest detachment and objectivity: "We should write the whole truth about our ancestors, the Cossacks, and about their enemies; let the reader judge as he pleases. We shall not pass in silence over any act of cruelty committed by the Cossacks, nor shall we hide from the public eye the brave deed of a noble."

"Ruyina" has two chapters: a short survey of Ukrainian history from the earliest times to Stefan Batory, and an account of political, social, and economic life in the Ukraine in the second half of the sixteenth century. Kulish regarded the viche (assembly), or as he called it "the people's law," as the mainstay of the Ukrainian political and social system. Therefore, in his opinion, the victory of the Tatars over the Kievan princes was beneficent since "it put an end to the mounting supremacy of the princely power over the power of the assembly." The assembly or "people's law" remained, therefore, the basic principle of Ukrainian history; it never became extinct, and it could not be suppressed by savage neighbors. It must also constitute the basis for any future system of government in the Ukraine, since the Ukrainian people have not lost this paramount ideal of theirs, in spite of the long period of subjugation and servitude. As a result of the Tatar domination, even the Church in the Ukraine lost its aristocratic character and became "a union of brother-countrymen and the common property of the people."

The "assembly law" was best expressed in the Cossack organization which attracted to itself the finest elements of Ukrainian  p152 society. The Cossacks became the defenders of the political, social, and national freedom of the Ukraine, and they were accepted as such by the Ukrainian people as a whole. Thus it is obvious that Kulish was still under the influence of "Populism," and its most prominent exponent, Kostomarov.90 Another of his studies "Pochyny lykholittya lyads'koho," is written from the same point of view, although Kulish declares in the preface that he had based it on Polish sources and had ignored the Ukrainian chronicles which are full of phantasy. His admiration for the Cossacks had greatly diminished. Kulish was especially critical of Prince Constantine Ostrozhsky who "with one hand printed the Bible [. . .] and with the other protected the bloody bandits," and Nalyvayko whom he dethroned from the honored position of "defender of the faith," as created by the "monkish chroniclers and their stupefied pupils."

In 1868 Kulish published a lengthy treatise, "Pervyi period kozatsva od yoho pochatku do vorohuvannya z lyakhamy" (The First Period of the Cossacks from Its Beginning to the Hostilities with the Poles), Pravda, Lviv, 1868, No. 1‑17, 25‑35. This work does not manifest Kulish's hostile attitude towards the Cossacks, which was typical in his later publications, but he was already gloomy here about the role of the Cossacks in Ukrainian history. "Having destroyed the mighty Polish kingdom . . . the Rus′ people's spirit failed to create a new edifice of freedom on the smouldering ruins. New beasts of prey were allowed to dominate them instead of the old ones." For this study Kulish used a great deal of material and showed deep and critical understanding of the sources. Therefore M. Hrushevsky commended Kulish's study by saying that "it depicted the social background of Cossack history and was free to a large degree from legendary tradition. It may be classed as the most valuable of all recent historiographies, and it is to be regretted that it [. . .] had little influence on contemporary literature. "91

 p153  "Pervyi period" was the proto­type, as it were, of a larger work which was to be a complete history of the Cossack Ukraine. The first volume of this history appeared in 1873 in St. Petersburg, entitled Istoriya vozsoedineniya Rusi (History of the Reunion of Rus′). The second volume appeared a year later, and in 1877 the third volume (brought up to 1620) came out, followed by the Materialy dlya istorii vozsoedineniya Rusi (The Materials for the History of the Reunion of Rus′), the last part of this work to be published.92 In the Istoriya vozsoedineniya Rusi Kulish attempted to evaluate afresh the contemporary Ukrainian historiography, the last word on which had been said by Kostomarov. Basing his work chiefly on Polish sources and belittling the value of Ukrainian sources, Kulish tried to demonstrate that the Cossacks were not a creative force in Ukrainian history, but that, on the contrary, they ruined the culture of the Polish and Ukrainian land­owners and nobles, who were the "colonizers of the wild steppes," and builders of a social order. He emphasized the importance of the bourgeoisie in Ukrainian history and pointed out their meritorious defense of their faith and nationality against Polish pressure. At the same time Kulish repeated his contention, previously expressed in the epilogue to Chorna Rada, that the Ukrainian people were incapable of creating their own state and that therefore the merger of "northern" and "southern" Rus′ was historically inevitable. Instead of the former idealization of Ukrainian life, we find utter contempt expressed here for the people whom Kulish reduces to a quasi-animal level. Ukrainian history, for Kulish, contains "much that is anti-rational," while Polish history "often charms us with its events," (op. cit.I, preface, p1‑2). Yet in spite of all its culture, Poland's social foundation was disrupted; very early a struggle began between the landlords and nobility on the one hand, and equal rights for the people on the other. Apart from that, Poland suffered as a result of her urge to Polonize and Latinize Rus′. The Nemesis of history was, therefore, just — when quite contrary to  p154 the nobles' wishes it "levelled the rights of all people in Poland, torn as it was into three parts." (op. cit., I, p13).

Not satisfied with sharp criticism of the Ukrainian historiography of earlier days, Kulish also attacked Kostomarov as a representative of the "Ukrainian Cossackophiles," and Shevchenko as "the poet of the Cossack Ukraine." Kulish called Shevchenko's muse "half drunk and reckless," and said that the greater part of what Shevchenko wrote is "not better than dust, to be blown about by the winds." (op. cit., II, p24).

Because of his extreme views, partly caused by frustrated ambition, and his rhetoric, even the valuable parts of Kulish's work remained under a cloud. Among these are Kulish's exposition of the origin of the Cossack movement and its first political actions, and the social background of the urban population and of the "brotherhoods." The volume Materialy is very valuable.

Kulish's tone is even more vehement in assailing the Cossack and Haydamak periods in his articles "Malyovana Haydamachchyna" (The Over-Decorated Haydamak Period), Pravda, 1876, No. 9‑12, and "Kozaki v otnoshenii k obshchestvu i gosudarstvu" (The Cossacks in Their Relation to Society and State), Russkii Arkhiv, 1877. This latter article prompted Kostomarov to write "O kozakakh" (About the Cossacks), Russkaya Starina, 1878.

From the time of the publication of Istoriya vozsoedineniya Rusi, which was the cause of a deep rift between Kulish and Ukrainian society, his preoccupation with attacks on the Cossacks became an obsession. He devoted to this some of his poetic and dramatic works, which serve as a commentary on his historical works e.g., his collections of poetry Khutorna poeziya (1882), Dzvin (1893), the poems Marusya Bohuslava, Kulish u pekli, Hryts'ko Skovoroda, the dramas Bayda, Tsar Nalyvay, Petro Sahaydachnyi). In his pamphlet Krashanka rusynam i polyakam na Velykden' 1882 roku (An Easter Egg Presented to the Ruthenians and the Poles on Easter 1882) Kulish wanted to be a conciliator between the Poles and the Ukrainians by contending that Ukrainian-Polish hostility in the past had been due to the intrigues of both Catholic and Orthodox clergy. [. . .] Kulish hoped that the Poles, who were "richer, more power­ful,  p155 on a higher level of culture and more experienced in politics," would be the first to welcome such an agreement. As is well known, Kulish's efforts were fruitless since the reasons for Polish-Ukrainian discord lay deeper than Kulish assumed.

Towards the end of his life Kulish attempted to complete his work on the history of the Ukraine which he had begun by publishing Istoriya vozsoedineniya Rusi. He published Otpadenie Malorossii ot Pol'shi, 1340‑1654 (The Secession of Little Russia from Poland, 1340‑1654) in three volumes (Moscow, 1888‑89), offering nothing original and repeating his charges against the Cossacks. The whole work resembles a political pamphlet rather than a historical study. The history of the Cossack Ukraine appears as a tale of pillage, banditry, and ruin. Khmelnytsky was a bandit and a traitor, while Kostomarov's study of him is described by Kulish as a "debased Clio." The appearance of Otpadenie Malorossii provoked no response from Ukrainian historians; only the Moscow historian, G. Karpov, defended Khmelnytsky as the sponsor of union with Russia in his article "V zashchitu B. Khmelnitskago," Chteniya, Moscow, 1889.

Kulish's last historical study, "Ukrainskie kozaki i pany v dvadtsatiletie pered buntom Khmelnitskago" (Ukrainian Cossacks and Landlords in Two Decades Before the Rebellion of Khmelnytsky), (Russkoe Obozrenie, 1895) was written in a similar spirit.

Passionate and violent in his impulses, Kulish was driven by an urge to search for truth, yet he was dissatisfied with the explanations offered by contemporary historiography. Looking at life from too theoretical an angle, Kulish could not formulate for himself a clear idea of the national and political strivings of the Ukrainian people, while he had abandoned the earlier position won by the author of Istoriya Rusov. He was confused by conflicting beliefs in the "people's law," the cultural mission of the Polish aristocracy, and the state functional mission of Moscow, and had therefore lost sight of those forces in Ukrainian history which worked towards the creation of a Ukrainian state. He is a tragic figure in the Ukrainian National Revival and he failed to occupy  p156 the place in Ukrainian historiography for which he was qualified by his talent and his sharp critical mind.


Literature on M. Kostomarov:

M. Drahomanov, Mykola Ivanovych Kostomarov, Lviv, 1901 (a reprint from Svit, 1881, No. 1‑2); V. Antonovych, "Kostomarov, kak istorik," Kievskaya Starina, 1885, V; M. Hrushevsky, "Ukrayins'ka istoriohrafiya i Mykola Kostomarov," Literaturno-Naukovyi Vistnyk, 1910, V; I. Krypyakevych, "Arkheohrafichni pratsi Kostomarova," ZNTSH, vol. CXXVI‑CXXVII, 1918; D. Doroshenko, Mykola Kostomarov, yoho naukova i hromads'ka diyal'nist', Kiev, 1920; M. Voznyak, Kyrylo-metodiyivs'ke bratstvo, Lviv, 1921; N. Petrov, Ocherki istorii ukrainskoi literatury XIX st., Kiev, 1884; A. Pypin, Malorusskaya etnografiya, St. Petersburg, 1891; N. Vasilenko, "Pamyati Kostomarova kak istorika," Kievskaya Mysl', 1901, No. 97, 98; D. D. (Doroshenko), "M. Kostomarov," Svitlo, 1910, No. 4; Avtobiografiya N. I. Kostomarova, edited by V. Kotel'nikov, Zadruga, Moscow, 1922; D. Doroshenko, Mykola Ivanovych Kostomarov, Leipzig, 1924; M. Hrushevsky, "Kostomarov i Novitnya Ukrayina," Ukrayina, 1925, III; M. Rubach, "Federalisticheskie teorii v istorii Rossii," Russkaya istoricheskaya literatura v klassovom osveshchenii, vol. II, Moscow, 1930; B. Krupnytsky, "Trends in Modern Ukrainian Historiography," The Ukrainian Quarterly, vol. VI, No. 4, 1950.

Literature on P. Kulish:

V. Shenrok, "P. A. Kulish," Kievskaya Starina, 1901, II‑X, and separately, Kiev, 1901; B. Hrinchenko, P. A. Kulish, Chernihiv, 1899; O. Makovey, "Pan'ko Kulish," Literaturno-Naukovyi Vistnyk, 1900, III‑XII; A. Pypin, Malorusskaya etnografiya, St. Petersburg, 1891; N. Petrov, Ocherki istorii ukrainskoi literatury XIX st., Kiev, 1884; D. Doroshenko, P. O. Kulish; yoho zhyttya i literaturno-hromads'ka diyal'nist', Kiev, 1918; D. Doroshenko, Panteleymon Kulish, Berlin, 1923; V. Shchurat, Filosofichna osnova tvorchosty Kulisha, Lviv, 1922; S. Yefremov, "Bez syntezu," Zapysky Istorychno-Filolohichnoho Viddilu VUAN, v. IV, Kiev, 1924; M. Hrushevsky, "Sotsiyal'no‑tradytsiyni pidosnovy Kulishevoyi  p157 tvorchosty," Ukrayina, 1927, I‑II; Panteleymon Kulish, Zbirnyk Prats' Komisiyi dlya vydavannya pamyatok novitn'oho pys'menstva, Kiev, 1927; I. Tkachenko, P. O. Kulish, Kharkiv, 1927; V. Petrov, P. Kulisha u 50‑i roky. I. Zyttya, ideolohiya, tvorchist', Kiev, 1929; Ye. Kyrylyuk, Bibliohrafiya prats' P. O. Kulisha ta pysan' pro n'oho, Kiev, 1929; D. Dorošenko, "Kuliš im Lichte der neuen Forschungen," Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie, Band V, Heft 3‑4, Leipzig, 1929; "P. O. Kulish, Materiyaly i rozvidky," ZNTSH, v. 148, Lviv, 1929‑1930.

The Author's or the Editor's Notes:

76 Modern Ukrainian historiography defines this trend as "populist."

[decorative delimiter]

77 See Kostomarov's works: book review of Kulish's Zapiski o Yuzhnoi Rusi in Otechestvennyya Zapiski, 1857, vol. 112; his article "Istoricheskoe znachenie yuzhno-russkago pesennago tvorchestva" (Beseda, 1872); review of Istoricheskiya pesni malorusskago naroda by Antonovych and Drahomanov (Vestnik Evropy, 1874, XII); and the article "Istoriya kozachestva v pamyatnikakh yuzhno-russkago pesennago tvorchestva," Russkaya Mysl', 1880‑83.

[decorative delimiter]

78 See M. Drahomanov and V. Antonovych, Istoricheskiya pesni malorusskago naroda and M. Drahomanov, Politychni pisni ukrayins'koho narodu, Geneva, 1883‑1885.

[decorative delimiter]

79 Later on Kostomarov, having revised and enlarged this work, published it under the name "Otryvki iz istorii yuzhno-russkago kozachestva do Bogdana Khmelnitskago" (Fragments from the History of South-Russian Cossacks in Pre‑Khmelnytsky Times) in Biblioteka dlya Chteniya, 1865, I‑III; in Kostomarov's completed works this study was published under the name "Yuzhnaya Rus′ v kontse XVI v." (South Rus′ at the End of the XVI Century). The original text was reprinted in the symposium Naukovo-publitsystychni i polemichni pysannya M. Kostomarova, edited by M. Hrushevsky, Kiev, 1928.

[decorative delimiter]

80 Knyhy Bytiya was first published by P. Zaytsev in book I of Nashe Mynule, Kiev, 1918. He added his study "Knyhy Bytiya as a Document and Creative Work." Actually Zaytsev gave the above name to this Kostomarov work, which did not have any name in the original and was known among the members of the Brotherhood of Sts. Cyril and Methodius as "Catechism."

In 1921 in Lviv M. Voznyak published this work as a booklet.

In 1947 two new publications of Knyhy Bytiya appeared. The Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Germany (Augsburg, 1947) published this work, edited by B. Yanivsky (V. Miyakovsky) with a supplement by him: "Knyhy Bytiya by M. Kostomarov." The second publication was that by Elie Borschak, who edited it and wrote a preface and footnotes of historical and philological character (Paris, 1947).

We name a few modern scholar­ly publications dealing with Knyhy Bytiya: J. Gołąbek, " 'Księgi narodu polskiego' A. Mickiewicza i 'Knyhy bytija ukrayins'koho narodu' M. Kostomarowa," Sbornik prâcé Šjezdu slovanských filologů v Praze, 1929, Svazek II, Prague, 1932; J. Gołąbek, Bractwo Šw. Cyryla i Metodego w Kijowie, Warsaw, 1935; L. Biletsky," 'Knyhy Bytiya Ukrayins'koho Narodu' yak deklaratsiya prav ukrayins'koyi natsii," Naukovyi Zbirnyk Ukrayins'koho Vil'noho Universitetu u Prazi, vol. III, 1942; I. Sydoruk, Ideology of Cyrillo-Methodians, Winnipeg-Chicago, 1954; Kostomarov's "Books of Genesis of the Ukrainian People" with a Commentary by B. Yanivs'kyi, New York, 1954.

In some works doubts were expressed in regard to Kostomarov's author­ship of Knyhy Bytiya. There were suggestions that Shevchenko was its author or co‑author; there was also an opinion expressed that the book was a collective creation of members of the Brotherhood of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. We think that those opinions have not been proved.

[decorative delimiter]

81 To be more exact — "Svyerchovsky."

[decorative delimiter]

82 Otechestvennyya Zapiski, 1856, No. 9.

[decorative delimiter]

83 Published in Ukrainian: M. Kostomarov, Pys'mo do vydavtsiv "Kolokola," with M. Drahomanov's preface, Lviv, 1902.

[decorative delimiter]

84 It was translated into Ukrainian by O. Barvinsky and published in the 1870's in the periodical Pravda, Lviv, and separately, as Rus'ka Istoriya v zhyttepysakh yiyi nayholovnishykh diyateliv, v.v. I‑III, Lviv, 1878; a new Ukrainian edition in Lviv, 1918: Ukrayins'ka istoriya v zhyttepysakh yiyi nayznamenytishykh diyachiv.

[decorative delimiter]

85 M. Kostomarov, Bogdan Khmelnitsky, v. I, pp200‑201. St. Petersburg, 1884.

[decorative delimiter]

86 V. Antonovych, "Kostomarov kak istorik," Kievskaya Starina, 1885, V, pp. xxvii, xxx‑xxxi.

[decorative delimiter]

87 Complete historical monographs and studies by Kostomarov were published in eight volumes in St. Petersburg, 1903‑1906.

[decorative delimiter]

88 O. M. Bilozerska-Kulish (1828‑1911), a well-known Ukrainian writer who published her works under the pen name Hanna Barvinok.

[decorative delimiter]

89 Yuriy Nemyrych (1614‑1659), a Ukrainian statesman, Chancellor of the Great Rus′ Principality, one of the leaders of Ukrainian Arianism.

Thayer's Note: Arianism, or Socinianism. See the article at Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine.
[decorative delimiter]

90 In one of his later articles D. I. Doroshenko wrote that "the 'populism' in Ukrainian historiography began with Kostomarov's works" (Ukrayins'kyi Litopys, 1947, No. 7‑8, p31).

[decorative delimiter]

91 M. Hrushevsky, Istoriya Ukrayiny-Rusy, v. VII, Kiev, 1909, p567.

[decorative delimiter]

92 The second volume of Kulish's Materials dwelling on the 1620‑1630 has remained in manuscript.

[image ALT: Valid HTML 4.01.]

Page updated: 9 Jul 22