The origin of Ukrainian separatism. "The origin of Ukrainian separatism" Nikolay Ulyanov Ulyanov the origin of Ukrainian separatism download djvu

04.03.2023

Caries during pregnancy: what causes teeth decay?

Causes and treatment of caries during pregnancy

Treatment of caries of milk teeth in young children

What to do if a crown fell off a tooth or fell out with a pin: solution to the problem A tooth fell out with a pin and a crown

Nikolay Ivanovich Ulyanov

Origins of Ukrainian separatism

Introduction

The peculiarity of Ukrainian independence is that it does not fit into any of the existing teachings on national movements and cannot be explained by any "iron" laws. It does not even have national oppression as the first and most necessary justification for its emergence. The only example of "oppression" - the decrees of 1863 and 1876, which limited the freedom of the press in a new, artificially created literary language - were not perceived by the population as national persecution. Not only the common people, who had nothing to do with the creation of this language, but also ninety-nine percent of the enlightened Little Russian society consisted of opponents of its legalization. Only an insignificant handful of intellectuals, who never expressed the aspirations of the majority of the people, made him their political banner. For all 300 years of being a part of the Russian State, Little Russia-Ukraine was neither a colony nor an "enslaved nation".

It was once taken for granted that the national essence of a people was best expressed by the party that stood at the head of the nationalist movement. Today, Ukrainian independenceism provides an example of the greatest hatred for all the most revered and most ancient traditions and cultural values of the Little Russian people: it persecuted the Church Slavonic language, which had established itself in Rus' since the adoption of Christianity, and even more cruel persecution was erected on the all-Russian literary language, which had been lying for a thousand years. years at the basis of the writing of all parts of the Kievan State, during and after its existence. The independentists are changing the cultural and historical terminology, changing the traditional assessments of the heroes of the events of the past. All this means neither understanding nor affirmation, but the eradication of the national soul. Truly national feeling is sacrificed to a concocted party nationalism.

The scheme of development of any separatism is as follows: first, a “national feeling” allegedly awakens, then it grows and strengthens until it leads to the idea of secession from the former state and the creation of a new one. In Ukraine, this cycle took place in the opposite direction. There, at first, a desire for separation was revealed, and only then an ideological basis began to be created as a justification for such a desire.

In the title of this work, it is no coincidence that the word "separatism" is used instead of "nationalism". It was the national base that was lacking for Ukrainian independence at all times. It has always looked like a non-popular, non-national movement, as a result of which it suffered from an inferiority complex and still cannot get out of the stage of self-affirmation. If for Georgians, Armenians, Uzbeks this problem does not exist, due to their pronounced national image, then for Ukrainian independentists the main concern is still to prove the difference between Ukrainian and Russian. Separatist thought is still working on the creation of anthropological, ethnographic and linguistic theories that should deprive Russians and Ukrainians of any degree of kinship between them. First, they were declared "two Russian peoples" (Kostomarov), then - two different Slavic peoples, and later theories arose according to which the Slavic origin was left only to the Ukrainians, while the Russians were attributed to the Mongols, to the Turks, to the Asians. Yu. Shcherbakivsky and F. Vovk knew for certain that the Russians are the descendants of people of the Ice Age, related to the Lapps, Samoyeds and Voguls, while the Ukrainians are representatives of the Middle Asian round-headed race that came from the Black Sea and settled in the places liberated by the Russians, left to the north after the retreating glacier and mammoth. An assumption has been made that sees in the Ukrainians the remnant of the population of the drowned Atlantis.

And this abundance of theories, and the feverish cultural isolation from Russia, and the development of a new literary language cannot but catch the eye and give rise to suspicions of the artificiality of the national doctrine.

* * *

D. A. Odinets, who immersed himself in this topic and collected abundant material, was overwhelmed by the grandiosity of the German plans, the persistence and scope of propaganda in order to plant independenceism. The Second World War revealed an even wider canvas in this sense.

But for a long time historians, and among them such an authority as prof. II Lappo, drew attention to the Poles, attributing to them the main role in the creation of the autonomist movement.

Another Pole, c. Thaddeus Chatsky, at the same time embarks on the path of a racial interpretation of the term "Ukrainian". If the old Polish annalists, like Samuil of Grondsky, already in the 17th century derived this term from the geographical location of Little Russia, located on the edge of Polish possessions (“Margo enim polonice kraj; inde Ukgaina quasi provincia ad fines Regni posita”), then Chatsky derived it from some horde of "ukrovs" unknown to anyone except him, who supposedly came out from behind the Volga in the 7th century.

The Poles were not satisfied with either "Little Russia" or "Little Rus'". They could reconcile with them if the word "Rus" did not apply to "Muscovites".

The introduction of "Ukraine" began under Alexander I, when, having Polonized Kiev, covering the entire right-bank south-west of Russia with a dense network of their district schools, founding the Polish University in Vilna and taking over the Kharkov University that opened in 1804, the Poles felt themselves masters of mental life Little Russian region.

The role of the Polish circle at Kharkov University is well known, in the sense of promoting the Little Russian dialect as a literary language. The Ukrainian youth was instilled with the idea of the alienness of the all-Russian literary language, all-Russian culture, and, of course, the idea of the non-Russian origin of Ukrainians was not forgotten.

Gulak and Kostomarov, who were students of Kharkov University in the 1930s, were fully exposed to this propaganda. She also suggested the idea of an all-Slavic federal state, proclaimed by them in the late 1940s. The famous "Pan-Slavism", which provoked furious abuse of Russia throughout Europe, was in fact not of Russian, but of Polish origin. Prince Adam Czartoryski, as head of Russian foreign policy, openly proclaimed pan-Slavism as one of the means of reviving Poland.

Polish interest in Ukrainian separatism is best summed up by the historian Valerian Kalinka, who understood the futility of dreaming of returning southern Russia to Polish rule. This region is lost for Poland, but we must make sure that it is lost for Russia too. There is no better means for this than to spread discord between southern and northern Russia and to propagate the idea of their national isolation. The program of Ludwig Mieroslavsky was drawn up in the same spirit on the eve of the Polish uprising of 1863.

“All the agitation of Little Russianism - let it be transferred beyond the Dnieper; there is a vast Pugachev field for our belated Khmelnychyna. This is what our entire pan-Slavic and communist school consists of!.. This is the whole of Polish Herzenism!”

An equally interesting document was published by V. L. Burtsev on September 27, 1917, in the newspaper "Obshee Delo" in Petrograd. He presents a note found among the papers of the secret archive of the primate of the Uniate Church A. Sheptytsky, after the occupation of Lvov by Russian troops. The note was drawn up at the beginning of the First World War, in anticipation of the victorious entry of the Austro-Hungarian army into the territory of Russian Ukraine. It contained several proposals to the Austrian government on the subject of development and exclusion from Russia of this region. A broad program of military, legal, and ecclesiastical measures was outlined, advice was given on the establishment of a hetmanate, the formation of separatist-minded elements among Ukrainians, giving local nationalism a Cossack form, and “possibly the complete separation of the Ukrainian Church from the Russian.”

Origins of Ukrainian separatism

Publishing house "INDRIK" Moscow 1996

Editorial

The book by Nikolai Ivanovich Ulyanov, The Origin of Ukrainian Separatism, which is brought to the attention of the reader, is the only scientific work in the entire world historiography specifically devoted to this problem. Created almost 30 years ago, it is of interest to us, primarily because it is not connected with today's political events, or rather, not generated by them, and yet deafeningly modern. Such a fate rarely befalls academic research. It should hardly be surprising that he appeared in exile: in our country, such “untimely” thoughts simply could not have arisen. This, in turn, prompts us to reflect on the question of what the Russian emigration was, what it means for us today.

For a long time we were deprived of the powerful layer of culture created in exile after the October Revolution of 1917 and the civil war. By the will of fate, more than 3 million people turned out to be abroad. The exact number is unknown, it is disputed. It is indisputable only that the majority of emigrants were educated people. Moreover, there turned out to be the elite of Russian culture, in terms of creative potential comparable to that part that remained in the country (let's not forget about the losses suffered during the years of the civil war from famine, epidemics, and more from purely physical destruction).

Another wave that followed the Second World War, not inferior to it in numbers, could not compete with the first in other respects. But among the emigrants of this wave there were also poets and writers, scientists and designers, just enterprising people and just losers ...

Now many names are returning to us. Basically, these are writers, philosophers-thinkers like N. A. Berdyaev or G. P. Fedotov. It must be admitted that the examples here cannot but be accidental. We still do not know very well the huge legacy that has been left to us. It has yet to be explored and mastered. It is only clear that to a certain extent it is capable of filling those gaping gaps that have formed in our culture, self-consciousness and self-knowledge over the past 70 years.

The fate of each person is unique. Behind such a worn out phrase, however, are not at all banal events and life destinies, which rarely ended more or less happily. Emigration is not a gift of fate, but a forced step associated with inevitable losses. N. I. Ulyanov, who, one might say, was pushed out of the country by the very course of history, also traveled such a path.

The beginning of life was relatively prosperous. Nikolai Ivanovich was born in 1904 in St. Petersburg. Upon completion of secondary education, he entered St. Petersburg University in 1922 at the Faculty of History and Philology. After graduating from the university in 1927, Academician S. F. Platonov, who became his teacher, offered the talented young man a postgraduate course. After that, he worked as a teacher at the Arkhangelsk Pedagogical Institute, and in 1933 he returned to Leningrad, becoming a senior researcher at the Academy of Sciences.

In a matter of years, his first books were published: “Razinshchina” (Kharkov, 1931), “Essays on the history of the Komi-Zyryan people” (Leningrad, 1932), “Peasant war in the Moscow State at the beginning of the 17th century.” (Leningrad, 1935), a number of articles. He was awarded the degree of candidate of historical sciences. Many scientific ideas were waiting for their implementation. But the layout of Ulyanov's next book was scattered: in the summer of 1936 he was arrested ... After the assassination of Kirov and on the eve of the show trials, Leningrad was purged of the intelligentsia.

The life of a 32-year-old scientist was trampled down, and scientific work was interrupted for many years. He was given a term of 5 years (informed people know that such a “soft” sentence with a stereotyped charge of counter-revolutionary propaganda was given “for nothing”) he served in camps on Solovki, and then in Norilsk.

He was released on the very eve of the war and was soon taken to trench work. Near Vyazma, along with others, he was taken prisoner. The prisoner's estimate came in handy: he fled from the German camp, walked several hundred kilometers along the German rear and found his wife in the distant suburbs of besieged Leningrad. For more than a year and a half they lived in remote villages in the occupied territory. The profession of his wife, Nadezhda Nikolaevna, saved her from hunger: a doctor is needed always and everywhere ...

In the autumn of 1943, the occupation authorities sent N. I. and N. N. Ulyanovs to Germany for forced labor. Here, near Munich, Ulyanov worked at an automobile plant as an oxy-fuel welder (didn't he continue the Gulag "specialty"?). After the defeat of Germany, this area was in the American zone. A new threat of forced repatriation dawned. The past years have deprived N. I. Ulyanov of illusions: the Stalinist regime in his homeland did not promise a return to scientific work, rather, camps again. The choice was not great. But no one in the West was waiting for him either. After long ordeals, in 1947 he moved to Casablanca (Morocco), where he continued to work as a welder at the metallurgical plant of the French concern Schwartz Omon. He remained here until the beginning of 1953, which gave him an excuse to sign the first articles that began to appear in the émigré press with the pseudonym "Schwartz-Omonsky," which gave off camp humor.

As soon as life began to more or less get back on track, N. I. Ulyanov decided to visit Paris: the French protectorate over Morocco made such a trip easier then. The trip was a turning point in my life. “... For the first time in my emigration I saw a real cultural Russia. It was a breath of fresh water. I literally rested my soul, ”he wrote to his wife. Among the new acquaintances who greeted him warmly were S. Melgunov, N. Berberova, B. Zaitsev and many others. The first was followed by other trips, it became possible to use large libraries, scientific work was resumed, and the prospect of publishing works opened up.

The end of the 1940s - the beginning of the 1950s went down in history as the dead era of the Cold War. Every war needs its fighters. At the beginning of 1953, attempts to draw N. I. Ulyanov into their phalanx (he was invited by the American Committee for the Fight against Bolshevism as the editor-in-chief of the Russian department of the Liberation radio station) were unsuccessful. The struggle against the Bolshevik regime was in those conditions inseparable from the struggle against the motherland, its unity, its peoples. Such political manipulations were incompatible with the convictions of Nikolai Ivanovich. Having looked behind the scenes of the political scene, having understood the strategic plans of its directors, he resolutely moved away from them. In the spring of 1953, he moved to Canada (here, in particular, he began to lecture at the University of Montreal), and since 1955 he became a teacher at Yale University (Connecticut, New Haven).

Actually, only since 1955, the scientific activity of N. I. Ulyanov was resumed in full. The best and most fruitful years in the life of any scientist (from 32 to 51) were irretrievably lost. One can only be surprised that a 19-year break has not dulled the taste for science. At the same time, hard breaks in fate developed critical assessments of reality in him, made him a sharp polemicist, which affected all subsequent work. In combination with an encyclopedic mindset, all this turned him into a consistent subverter of stereotyped schemes, conventional truths and scholastic concepts. It is here that the clue to his special place in historiography is rooted. He can rightly be called a historical thinker, the true scope of which is far from fully understood by us due to the almost complete obscurity of his works for Russian scientific circles.

The conversation about the work of N. I. Ulyanov is large and complex. In addition to scientific works, he owns two historical novels - "Atossa", which tells about the wars of Darius with the Scythians, and "Sirius", which describes the last years of the Russian Empire, the events of the First World War and the February Revolution. With a certain degree of conventionality, we can say that both of them, as it were, symbolize the upper and lower chronological levels of his scientific interests. His articles are scattered throughout the pages of the Vozrozhdenie (Paris) and Novy Zhurnal (New York) magazines, the New Russian Word (New York) and Russian Thought (Paris) newspapers, as well as many other foreign periodicals. , collections of articles, the English "Encyclopedia of Russia and the Soviet Union", English-language scientific periodicals. At one time, his articles on the role of the Russian intelligentsia in the fate of Russia, the characteristics of individual historical figures (“Northern Talma” about Alexander I and “The Basmanny Philosopher” about the views of P. Ya. Chaadaev), about Marx’s Slavophobia (“Silenced Marx” ) and others. His report “The Historical Experience of Russia”, delivered in New York in 1961 at the celebration of the 1100th anniversary of Russian statehood, evoked a wide response. But, perhaps, the “Origin of Ukrainian separatism” occupies a central place in his historical research. This study took over 15 years to complete. Some of its parts were published in various editions long before the appearance of the monograph as a whole. They immediately attracted attention. As the scale of the idea and the skill of execution became clearer, not only attention grew, but also opposition. How else to explain the fact that this book, which has no equal in coverage of the chosen subject of research, could not be published in the USA? Don't be fooled by the designation "New York, 1966" on the title page. The book was typed and printed in Spain, in Madrid, where, in fact, there were no suitable conditions for this, as evidenced by the already archaic pre-revolutionary spelling and grammar by that time, which the author himself did not use. Apparently, both the typesetter and the printing house itself were archaic, which also led to the presence of numerous typos.

The subsequent fate of the book was very strange. She dispersed pretty quickly. Only later it turned out that most of the circulation did not reach the readers, but was bought up by interested parties and destroyed. The monograph soon became a bibliographic rarity. However, no second edition followed. Scientific work does not bring income, it was published at the personal expense of the author (who retired in 1973), and apparently there were no sponsors ...

We will not touch here on the content of the book or give it any final assessment. The reader will find in it both strengths and individual shortcomings. Something is likely to cause him objections and a desire to argue. And it is difficult to expect otherwise when it comes to such an acute problem. It is not excluded that there will be such readers on whom familiarization with the book will act as a touch to the exposed dental nerve. But such is the nature of the object of study. It is important, however, that the author nowhere offended anyone's national feelings. Arguments must be answered with counterarguments, not outbursts of passion.

Unfortunately, the author will no longer be able to object to his opponents or talk with people who have accepted his views (at least partially). N. I. Ulyanov died in 1985 and was buried in the cemetery of Yale University. It seems, however, that he himself would have listened with great interest to constructive remarks and objectively reasoned criticism. Any scientific research needs such an approach. The author himself professed these principles, as evidenced by all his work. We believe that the work of N. I. Ulyanov is such a monument of historical thought, acquaintance with which is necessary even for those who have a different point of view. And who can - let him write better.

The materials of the book were used in the preface: “Responses. Collection of articles in memory of N. I. Ulyanov (1904-1985). Ed. V. Sechkareva. New Haven, 1986.

Foreword (from the author)

The peculiarity of Ukrainian independence is that it does not fit any of the existing teachings on national movements and cannot be explained by any “iron” laws. It does not even have national oppression as the first and most necessary justification for its emergence. The only example of "oppression" - the decrees of 1863 and 1876, which limited the freedom of the press in a new, artificially created literary language, were not perceived by the population as national persecution. Not only the common people, who had nothing to do with the creation of this language, but also ninety-nine percent of the enlightened Little Russian society consisted of opponents of its legalization. Only an insignificant handful of intellectuals, who never expressed the aspirations of the majority of the people, made him their political banner. For all 300 years of being a part of the Russian State, Little Russia-Ukraine was neither a colony nor an "enslaved nation".

It was once taken for granted that the national essence of a people was best expressed by the party that stood at the head of the nationalist movement. Nowadays, Ukrainian independenceism provides an example of the greatest hatred for all the most honored and most ancient traditions and cultural values of the Little Russian people: it subjected the Church Slavonic language, which had established itself in Russia since the adoption of Christianity, to persecution, and an even more cruel persecution was erected on the all-Russian literary language, which lay in for a thousand years at the basis of the writing of all parts of the Kievan State, during and after its existence. Independentists change cultural and historical terminology, change traditional assessments of the heroes and events of the past. All this means neither understanding nor affirmation, but the eradication of the national soul. Truly national feeling is sacrificed to a concocted party nationalism.

The scheme of development of any separatism is as follows: first, allegedly, a “national feeling” awakens, then it grows and gets stronger until it leads to the idea of secession from the former state and the creation of a new one. In Ukraine, this cycle took place in the opposite direction. There, at first, a desire for separation was revealed, and only then an ideological basis began to be created as a justification for such a desire.

In the title of this work, it is no coincidence that the word “separatism” is used instead of “nationalism”. It was the national base that was lacking for Ukrainian independence at all times. It has always looked like a non-popular, non-national movement, as a result of which it suffered from an inferiority complex and still cannot get out of the stage of self-affirmation. If for Georgians, Armenians, Uzbeks this problem does not exist, due to their pronounced national image, then for Ukrainian independentists the main concern is still to prove the difference between Ukrainian and Russian. Separatist thought is still working on the creation of anthropological, ethnographic and linguistic theories that should deprive Russians and Ukrainians of any degree of kinship between them. First, they were declared "two Russian peoples" (Kostomarov), then - two different Slavic peoples, and later theories arose according to which the Slavic origin was left only to the Ukrainians, while the Russians were attributed to the Mongols, to the Turks, to the Asians. Yu. Shcherbakivsky and F. Vovk knew for certain that the Russians are the descendants of people of the Ice Age, related to the Lapps, Samoyeds and Voguls, while the Ukrainians are representatives of the Middle Asian round-headed race that came from the Black Sea and settled in the places liberated by the Russians, left to the north after the retreating glacier and mammoth. An assumption has been made that sees in the Ukrainians the remnant of the population of the drowned Atlantis.

***

There is a long-standing tendency in Russian literature, especially emigre literature, to explain Ukrainian nationalism solely by the influence of external forces. It became especially widespread after the First World War, when a picture of the wide activity of the Austro-Germans in financing organizations such as the “Union for the Liberation of Ukraine”, in organizing combat squads (“Sichevye Streltsy”) who fought on the side of the Germans, in setting up camps-schools for captured Ukrainians. D. A. Odinets, who immersed himself in this topic and collected abundant material, was overwhelmed by the grandiosity of the German plans, the persistence and scope of propaganda in order to plant independenceism. The Second World War revealed an even wider canvas in this sense.

But for a long time historians, and among them such an authoritative as prof. II Lappo, drew attention to the Poles, attributing to them the main role in the creation of the autonomist movement.

The Poles, in fact, can rightfully be considered the fathers of the Ukrainian doctrine. It was laid down by them in the era of the hetmanate. But even in modern times, their creativity is very great. Thus, the very use of the words "Ukraine" and "Ukrainians" for the first time in literature began to be implanted by them. It is found already in the writings of Count Jan Potocki. Another Pole, c. Thaddeus Chatsky, at the same time embarks on the path of a racial interpretation of the term "Ukrainian". If the ancient Polish annalists, like Samuil of Grondsky, already in the 17th century derived this term from the geographical location of Little Russia, located on the edge of Polish possessions ("Margo enim polonice kraj; inde Ukraina quasi provincial ad fines Regni posita"), then Chatsky derived it from some horde of "ukrovs" unknown to anyone except him, who supposedly came out from behind the Volga in the 7th century.

The Poles were not satisfied with either "Little Russia" or "Little Rus'". They could reconcile with them if the word "Rus" did not apply to "Muscovites". The introduction of "Ukraine" began under Alexander I, when, having Polonized Kiev, covering the entire right-bank south-west of Russia with a dense network of their district schools, founding the Polish University in Vilna and taking over the Kharkov University that opened in 1804, the Poles felt themselves masters of mental life Little Russian region.

Gulak and Kostomarov, who were students of Kharkov University in the 1930s, were fully exposed to this propaganda. She also suggested the idea of an all-Slavic federal state, proclaimed by them in the late 1940s. The famous "Pan-Slavism", which provoked furious abuse of Russia throughout Europe, was in fact not of Russian, but of Polish origin. Book. Adam Czartoryski, as head of Russian foreign policy, openly proclaimed pan-Slavism as one of the means of reviving Poland.

Polish interest in Ukrainian separatism is best summed up by the historian Valerian Kalinka, who understood the futility of dreaming of returning southern Russia to Polish rule. This region is lost for Poland, but it must be done in such a way that it is lost for Russia as well. There is no better means for this than to spread discord between southern and northern Russia and to propagate the idea of their national isolation. The program of Ludwig Mieroslavsky was drawn up in the same spirit on the eve of the Polish uprising of 1863.

The note was drawn up at the beginning of the First World War, in anticipation of the victorious entry of the Austro-Hungarian army into the territory of Russian Ukraine. It contained several proposals to the Austrian government on the subject of development and exclusion from Russia of this region. A broad program of military, legal, and ecclesiastical measures was outlined, advice was given on the establishment of a hetmanate, the formation of separatist-minded elements among Ukrainians, giving local nationalism a Cossack form, and “possibly the complete separation of the Ukrainian Church from the Russian.”

The piquancy of the note lies in its authorship. Andrey Sheptytsky, whose name it is signed, was a Polish count, the younger brother of the future Minister of War in Pilsudski's government. Having started his career as an Austrian cavalry officer, he later became a monk, became a Jesuit, and from 1901 to 1944 served as Metropolitan of Lvov. Throughout his tenure in this post, he tirelessly served the cause of Ukraine's separation from Russia under the guise of its national autonomy. His activity, in this sense, is one of the examples of the implementation of the Polish program in the east.

This program began to take shape immediately after the sections. The Poles took on the role of a midwife in the birth of Ukrainian nationalism and a nanny in its upbringing. They succeeded in making the Little Russian nationalists, in spite of their long-standing antipathy towards Poland, become their zealous disciples. Polish nationalism became a model for the most petty imitation, to the point that the hymn “Ukraine has not yet died” composed by P. P. Chubynsky was an undisguised imitation of the Polish one: “Polska has not yet perished.”

But this is unlikely to be correct. The Poles could nourish and nurture the embryo of separatism, the very same embryo existed in the depths of Ukrainian society. To discover and trace its transformation into a prominent political phenomenon is the task of this work.

Introduction

The peculiarity of Ukrainian independence is that it does not fit any of the existing teachings on national movements and cannot be explained by any “iron” laws. It does not even have national oppression as the first and most necessary justification for its emergence. The only example of "oppression" - the decrees of 1863 and 1876, which limited the freedom of the press in a new, artificially created literary language - were not perceived by the population as national persecution. Not only the common people, who had nothing to do with the creation of this language, but also 99 percent of the enlightened Little Russian society consisted of opponents of its legalization. Only an insignificant handful of intellectuals, who never expressed the aspirations of the majority of the people, made him their political banner. For all 300 years of being a part of the Russian state, Little Russia-Ukraine was neither a colony nor an “enslaved people”.

It was once taken for granted that the national essence of a people was best expressed by the party that stood at the head of the nationalist movement. Today, Ukrainian independenceism provides an example of the greatest hatred for all the most revered and most ancient traditions and cultural values of the Little Russian people: it persecuted the Church Slavonic language, which had established itself in Rus' since the adoption of Christianity, and even more cruel persecution was erected on the all-Russian literary language, which had been lying for a thousand years. years in the basis of the writing of all parts of the Kiev state, during and after its existence. The independentists are changing the cultural and historical terminology, changing the traditional assessments of the heroes of the events of the past. All this means neither understanding nor affirmation, but the eradication of the national soul. Truly national feeling is sacrificed to a concocted party nationalism.

The scheme of development of any separatism is as follows: first, a “national feeling” allegedly awakens, then it grows and strengthens until it leads to the idea of secession from the former state and the creation of a new one. In Ukraine, this cycle took place in the opposite direction. There, at first, a desire for separation was revealed, and only then did an ideological basis begin to be created as a justification for such a desire.

First, they were declared “two Russian peoples” (Kostomarov), then two different Slavic peoples, and later theories arose according to which the Slavic origin was left only to the Ukrainians, while the Russians were attributed to the Mongols, Turks, Asians. Yu. Shcherbakivsky and F. Vovk knew for certain that the Russians are the descendants of people of the Ice Age, related to the Lapps, Samoyeds and Voguls, while the Ukrainians are representatives of the Middle Asian round-headed race that came from the Black Sea and settled in the places liberated by the Russians, gone north following the retreating glacier and the mammoth 1
Shcherbakovsky Yu. Formation of the Ukrainian nation. Prague, 1942; New York, 1958.

An assumption has been made that sees in the Ukrainians the remnant of the population of the drowned Atlantis.

D. A. Odinets, who immersed himself in this topic and collected abundant material, was overwhelmed by the grandeur of the German plans, the persistence and scope of propaganda in order to plant independence 2
Odinets D. A. From the history of Ukrainian separatism // Modern notes. No. 68.

The Second World War revealed an even wider canvas in this sense.

But for a long time historians, and among them such an authority as Professor I. I. Lappo, drew attention to the Poles, attributing to them the main role in the creation of the autonomist movement.

Another Pole, Count Thaddeus Chatsky, at the same time embarks on the path of a racial interpretation of the term "Ukrainian". If the old Polish annalists, like Samuil of Grondsky, back in the 17th century. derived this term from the geographical location of Little Rus', located on the edge of the Polish possessions ("Margo enim polonice kraj; inde Ukraina quasi provincia ad fines Regni posita") 4
This interpretation was accepted by M. S. Grushevsky. But, feeling his inconvenience for Ukrainophilism and for his entire historical scheme, he nonetheless did not arrive at any other clear explanation. Already in 1919 in the "Short History of Ukraine" on p. 3 he promised: “And the letters of the name of Ukraine were written - lo and behold, we sing.” But neither in this nor in other books did he initiate us into the results of the “bailing”. One of his followers and, it seems, students, Sergei Shelukhin, considers all his judgments on this matter "a chaos of conjectures." Cm.: Sheluhin S. Ukraine is the name of our land from the oldest part. Prague, 1936.

Then Chatsky produced it from some unknown horde of "ukrovs" to no one but him, who supposedly came out from behind the Volga in the 7th century. 5
Thadeusz Chacki. O nazwiku Ukrajny i poczetku kozak w // Collected. op. Warsaw, 1843–1845.

The Poles were not satisfied with either "Little Russia" or "Little Rus'". They could reconcile with them if the word "Rus" did not apply to "Muscovites".

The introduction of "Ukraine" began under Alexander I, when, having Polonized Kiev, covering the entire right-bank south-west of Russia with a dense network of their district schools, founding the Polish University in Vilna and taking over the Kharkov University, which opened in 1804, the Poles felt themselves masters of the mental life of the Little Russian region.

The role of the Polish circle at Kharkov University is well known, in the sense of promoting the Little Russian dialect as a literary language. The Ukrainian youth was inspired by the idea of the alienness of the all-Russian literary language, all-Russian culture, and, of course, the idea of the non-Russian origin of Ukrainians was not forgotten. 6
See about it: Book. Volkonsky A. M. Historical truth and Ukrainophile propaganda. Turin, 1920; Royal A. Ukrainian movement: a brief historical essay. Berlin, 1925.

Gulak and Kostomarov, who were in the 1830s. students of Kharkov University, were fully exposed to this propaganda. She also suggested the idea of an all-Slavic federal state, proclaimed by them in the late 1940s. The famous "Pan-Slavism", which provoked furious abuse of Russia throughout Europe, was in fact not of Russian, but of Polish origin. Prince Adam Czartoryski, as head of Russian foreign policy, openly proclaimed pan-Slavism as one of the means of reviving Poland.

There is no better means for this than to spread discord between southern and northern Russia and to propagate the idea of their national isolation. The program of Ludwig Mierosławski on the eve of the Polish uprising of 1863 was drawn up in the same spirit.

A no less interesting document was published by V. L. Burtsev on September 27, 1917 in the newspaper Common Cause in Petrograd. He presents a note found among the papers of the secret archive of the primate of the Uniate Church A. Sheptytsky after the occupation of Lvov by Russian troops. The note was drawn up at the beginning of the First World War, in anticipation of the victorious entry of the Austro-Hungarian army into the territory of Russian Ukraine. It contained several proposals to the Austrian government on the subject of development and exclusion from Russia of this region. A broad program of military, legal, and ecclesiastical measures was outlined, advice was given on the establishment of a hetmanate, the formation of separatist-minded elements among Ukrainians, giving local nationalism a Cossack form, and “possibly the complete separation of the Ukrainian Church from the Russian.”

The piquancy of the note lies in its authorship. Andrey Sheptytsky, whose name it is signed, was a Polish count, the younger brother of the future Minister of War in Pilsudski's government. Having started his career as an Austrian cavalry officer, he subsequently became a monk, became a Jesuit, and from 1901 to 1944 served as Metropolitan of Lvov. Throughout his tenure in this post, he tirelessly served the cause of Ukraine's separation from Russia under the guise of its national autonomy. His activity, in this sense, is one of the examples of the implementation of the Polish program in the East.

This program began to take shape immediately after the sections. The Poles took on the role of a midwife in the birth of Ukrainian nationalism and a nanny in its upbringing.

They succeeded in making the Little Russian nationalists, in spite of their long-standing antipathy towards Poland, become their zealous disciples. Polish nationalism has become a model for the most petty imitation, to the point that the hymn “Ukraine has not yet died” composed by P. P. Chubynsky was an undisguised imitation of the Polish “Jeszcze Polska ne zgin?ta” 9
"Poland has not yet perished" - the first line of the Polish anthem. ( Note. ed.)

The picture of these more than a century of efforts is full of such persistence in energy that one should not be surprised at the temptation of some historians and publicists to explain Ukrainian separatism by the influence of the Poles alone. 10
S. N. Shchegolev, who collected abundant material in Polish journalism of the 19th–20th centuries, is especially prone to this. See his "Modern Ukrainianism", 1914, as well as the earlier "Ukrainian Movement as a Modern Stage of South Russian Separatism" (Kyiv, 1912).

Zaporozhye Cossacks

When they talk about “national oppression” as the reason for the emergence of Ukrainian separatism, they either forget or don’t know at all that it appeared at a time when not only Muscovite oppression, but Muscovites themselves were not in Ukraine. It already existed at the time of the accession of Little Russia to the Muscovite state, and perhaps the first separatist was the hetman Bohdan Khmelnitsky himself, whose name is associated with the reunification of the two halves of the ancient Russian state. Less than two years had passed from the date of the oath of allegiance to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, as Moscow began to receive information about the disloyal behavior of Khmelnitsky, about his violation of the oath. Having checked the rumors and convinced them that they were correct, the government was forced to send the deceiver Fyodor Buturlin and the duma clerk Mikhailov to Chigirin in order to expose to the hetman the unseemliness of his behavior. “Hetman Bogdan Khmelnytsky with all the army of Zaporozhye in the holy church of God, according to the immaculate commandment of Christ, promised to serve before the holy Gospel and be in subjection and obedience under the high hand of his royal majesty and in everything to him the great sovereign wish well, and now we hear that you you wish well not to his royal majesty, but to Rakochi, and, even worse, you joined with the enemy of the great sovereign, Karl Gustav, the king of Sweden, who, with the help of his royal majesty’s Zaporizhian troops, torn off many Polish cities. And you, the hetman, provided assistance to the Swedish king without the permission of the great sovereign, you forgot the fear of God and your oath before the holy Gospel. 11
A. Yu. 3. R. T. III, No. 369.

Khmelnitsky was reproached for his willfulness and indiscipline, but they still did not allow the thought of deposing him from the Muscovite state. Meanwhile, neither Buturlin, nor the boyars, nor Alexei Mikhailovich knew that they were dealing with a double tribute who recognized the power of two sovereigns over himself. This fact became known in the 19th century, when the historian N. I. Kostomarov found two Turkish letters from Mehmet Sultan to Khmelnitsky, from which it is clear that the hetman, having surrendered to the arm of the Tsar of Moscow, was at the same time a subject of the Sultan of Turkey. He accepted Turkish citizenship back in 1650, when he was sent from Constantinople “a golden-headed piece” and a caftan, “so that you confidently put this caftan on yourself, in the sense that you have now become our faithful tributary” 12
Kostomarov N.I. Bogdan Khmelnitsky, tributary of the Ottoman Porte // Bulletin of Europe. 1878. Vol. VI.

Apparently, only a few close associates of Bogdan knew about this event, while it was hidden from the Cossacks and from the entire people of Little Russia. Going to Pereyaslavl in 1654 for the Rada, Khmelnitsky did not renounce his former allegiance and did not take off his Turkish caftan, putting on a Moscow fur coat over it.

More than a year and a half after the oath of allegiance to Moscow, the Sultan sends a new letter, from which it is clear that Bogdan did not even think of breaking with the Porte, but did his best to present her connection with Moscow in the wrong light. He hid the fact of new allegiance from Constantinople, explaining the whole matter as a temporary union caused by difficult circumstances. He still asked the Sultan to consider him his faithful vassal, for which he received a gracious word and assurances of high patronage.

The duplicity of Khmelnitsky did not represent anything exceptional; the entire Cossack foreman was set up in the same way. Before she had time to take the oath to Moscow, many made it clear that they did not want to remain faithful to her. Those who violated the oath were led by such prominent people as Bohun and Serko. Serko went to Zaporozhye, where he became a ataman. Bohun, an Uman colonel and a hero of the Khmelnychyna, having taken the oath, began to stir up the entire Bug region.

There were cases of outright evasion of the oath. This concerns, first of all, the higher clergy, who were hostile to the idea of unification with Moscow. But the Cossacks, who did not express such hostility at all, behaved no better. When Bogdan finally decided to surrender to the tsar, he asked for the opinion of the Sich, this metropolis of the Cossacks. The Sichists responded with a letter expressing their full consent to the transfer of "the entire Little Russian people, living on both sides of the Dnieper, under the patronage of the most great-powerful and most illustrious Russian monarch." And after the accession took place and Bogdan sent them to the Sich lists from the granted royal letters, the Cossacks expressed their joy at the “fixing and confirmation by the high monarch of the ancient rights and liberties of the troops of the Little Russian people”; they gave "praise and gratitude to the Most Holy Trinity and the worshiped God and the lowest petition to the Most Serene Sovereign." When it came to the oath to this sovereign, the Cossacks fell silent and fell silent. Covering them, the hetman tried to reassure the Moscow government in every possible way, assuring that "the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks are small people, and sometimes they are variable from the army, and there is nothing to respect them in business." Only over time did Moscow manage to insist on their oath 13
Yavornitsky D.I. History of the Zaporizhian Cossacks. SPb., 1895. T. 2. S. 248.

When the war with Poland began and the united Russian-Little Russian army besieged Lvov, the general clerk Vygovsky persuaded the Lvov townspeople not to surrender the city to the royal name. To the representative of these philistines, Kushevich, who refused to surrender, the Pereyaslav colonel Teterya whispered in Latin: "You are constant and noble."

By the end of the war, Khmelnitsky himself became extremely unfriendly with his colleagues - the royal governors. During prayer, when they sat down at the table, his confessor ceased to mention the royal name, while the foreman and the hetman showed signs of affection to the Poles with whom they fought. After the war, they decided on an open state crime, violating the Vilna Treaty concluded by the tsar with Poland and entering into a secret agreement with the Swedish king and the seven-grad prince Rakocz about the division of Poland. 12 thousand Cossacks were sent to help Rakochi 14
A. Yu. 3. R. T. III No. 369; Bantysh-Kamensky D.N. History of Little Russia. T. II. S. 8.

All three years that Khmelnitsky was under Moscow rule, he behaved like a man ready to lay down the oath and fall away from Russia from day to day.

The above facts took place at a time when the tsarist administration did not exist in Ukraine, and by no means of violence could it antagonize the Little Russians. There can be only one explanation: in 1654 there were individuals and groups who were reluctant to enter Moscow citizenship and thought about how to get out of it as soon as possible.

The explanation for such a curious phenomenon should be sought not in Little Russian history, but in the history of the Dnieper Cossacks, who played a leading role in the events of 1654. In general, the origins of Ukrainian independence cannot be understood without a detailed digression into the Cossack past. Even the new name of the country "Ukraine" came from the Cossacks. On ancient maps, territories with the inscription "Ukraine" appear for the first time in the 17th century, and, except for the map of Beauplan, this inscription always refers to the area of the settlement of the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks. On the Cornetti map of 1657, between Bassa Volinia and Podolia, Ukraine passa de Cosacchi is listed along the Dnieper. On a Dutch map of the late 17th century. the same place is marked: Ukraine of t. Land der Cosacken.

Hence the name began to spread to the whole of Little Russia. From here, the moods that laid the foundation for modern independenceism also spread. Not everyone understands the role of the Cossacks in the creation of the Ukrainian nationalist ideology. This is largely due to a misconception about its nature. Most draw their information about him from historical novels, songs, legends and all kinds of works of art. Meanwhile, the appearance of a Cossack in poetry bears little resemblance to his real historical appearance.

He appears there in a halo of selfless courage, martial art, knightly honor, high moral qualities, and most importantly, a major historical mission: he is a fighter for Orthodoxy and for the national South Russian interests. Usually, as soon as it comes to the Zaporizhian Cossack, the irresistible image of Taras Bulba arises, and one needs a deep dive into documentary material, into historical sources, in order to free oneself from the magic of Gogol's romance.

For a long time, two directly opposite views have been established on the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks. Some see in it a noble-aristocratic phenomenon - “knightly”. The late DM Doroshenko in his popular "History of Ukraine with little ones" compares the Zaporozhian Sich with medieval knightly orders. “Here gradually developed,” he says, “a special military organization like the knightly brotherhoods that existed in Western Europe.” But there is another, perhaps more widespread view, according to which the Cossacks embodied the aspirations of the plebeian masses and were a living bearer of the idea of democracy with its principles of universal equality, elective positions and absolute freedom.

These two views, not reconciled, not coordinated among themselves, continue to live to this day in independent literature. Both of them are not Cossack and not even Ukrainian. The Polish origin of the first of them is beyond doubt. It dates back to the 16th century. and is found for the first time in the Polish poet Paprocki. Observing the civil strife, the squabbling of magnates, the oblivion of state interests and all the political depravity of the then Poland, Paprocki contrasts them with a fresh, healthy, as it seemed to him, environment that arose on the outskirts of the Commonwealth. This is a Russian, Cossack environment. Poles, mired in internal strife, according to him, did not even suspect that they had been saved many times from death by this outlying Russian chivalry, which, like a rampart, reflected the pressure of the Turkish-Tatar forces. Paprocki admires his valor, his simple, strong morals, his readiness to stand up for the faith, for the entire Christian world. 15
Do Polakow. Reprinted by P. Kulish in an appendix to vol. II of his "History of the Reunification of Rus'", from a rare edition published in Krakow in 1575.

Paprocki's works were not realistic descriptions, but poems, or rather, pamphlets. They contain the same tendency as in Tacitus' "Germany", where the demoralized, degenerate Rome is opposed to the young, healthy organism of the barbarian people.

In the same Poland, writings begin to appear that describe the brilliant military exploits of the Cossacks, with which only the exploits of Hector, Diomedes, or Achilles himself can be compared. In 1572, an essay by lords Fredro, Lasitsky and Goretsky was published, describing the adventures of the Cossacks in Moldova under the command of hetman Ivan Svirgovsky. What miracles of courage are not shown there! The Turks themselves said to the captured Cossacks: “In the whole kingdom of Poland there are no warlike men like you!” They modestly objected: “On the contrary, we are the last, there is no place for us among our own, and therefore we came here to either fall with glory, or return with military booty.” All Cossacks who came to the Turks bear Polish surnames: Svirgovsky, Kozlovsky, Sidorsky, Yanchik, Kopytsky, Reshkovsky. From the text of the narrative it is clear that they are all gentry, but with some kind of dark past; for some, ruin, for others, misdeeds and crimes were the reason for leaving for the Cossacks. Cossack exploits are considered by them as a means of restoring honor: "either fall with glory, or return with military booty." That is why they are painted in such a way by the authors, who themselves could be Svirgovsky's associates 16
Cm.: Kostomarov N.I. Hetman Ivan Svirgovsky // Historical monographs. SPb., 1863. T. 2.

Even P. Kulish noticed that their composition was dictated by less lofty motives than the poems of Paprocki. They pursued the goal of rehabilitating the guilty gentry and amnesty. Such works, filled with exaltation of the courage of the nobles who went to the Cossacks, endowed all the Cossacks with chivalrous traits. This literature, no doubt, became known to the Cossacks early, contributing to the spread among them of a high view of their society. When did the "register" began in the XVII century. to seize lands, turn into landlords and seek the rights of the nobility, the popularization of the version of their chivalrous origin acquired particular persistence. “Chronicle of Grabyanka”, “A Brief Description of the Little Russian Cossack People” by P. Simonovsky, the works of N. Markevich and D. Bantysh-Kamensky, as well as the famous “History of the Rus” are the most striking expressions of the view on the gentry nature of the Cossacks.

Mar 21, 2017

Origins of Ukrainian separatism Nikolay Ulyanov

(No ratings yet)

Title: Origins of Ukrainian separatism

About the book "The Origin of Ukrainian Separatism" Nikolay Ulyanov

Nikolai Ulyanov is an outstanding Russian writer, historian and professor at Yale University. His famous book, The Origins of Ukrainian Separatism, is a historical monograph published in 1966 and still the only comprehensive scholarly study of the origins of Ukrainian separatism. Written decades ago, this work remains relevant today. Its main feature and difference from other works concerning Russian-Ukrainian relations is that the author does not resort to a superficial review method of describing the problem, but uses a deep analysis, taking into account all the sharp corners that arose in the confrontation between the two sides. The work is written in a simple, understandable language, so it will be interesting to read it not only for those who are fond of history, but also for everyone who wants to get high-quality food for thought.

In his book The Origin of Ukrainian Separatism, Nikolai Ulyanov distinguishes three parts, the first of which depicts the separatist inclinations of the Cossack elite, the second describes the renewal of "Little Russian Cossackophilism", and the last focuses on the emergence of the idea of independence. This monograph examines in detail the process of formation of the Ukrainian worldview, where it appears as established in order to argue disagreement with the idea of a common Russian identity. Much attention is paid by the author to the analysis of ways to suppress the Russian ethno-cultural movement in the Austro-Hungarian territories inhabited by Rusyns. The fundamental idea of the writer, expressed by him in his work, is that Ukrainian separatism is a fictional and artificially created phenomenon. One of his main arguments in favor of this approach is that, unlike similar phenomena in Europe and America, which, as a rule, were based on religious, racial or socio-economic factors, Ukrainian separatism is not characterized by any of them.

Mykola Ulyanov in his work "The Origin of Ukrainian separatism" reveals the reasons for the emergence and further development of the ideology of independence in Ukrainian lands. In addition, we are offered constructive explanations for the propensity of representatives of the Cossack elite to betrayal and inconstancy. Based on numerous evidence, the author comes to the conclusion that there are no convincing reasons for the separation of Ukrainian territories from the Russian state. Thus, for anyone who wants to get acquainted with this point of view, reading the book "The Origin of Ukrainian Separatism" will be useful and exciting.

On our site about books, you can download the site for free without registration or read online the book "The Origin of Ukrainian Separatism" by Nikolay Ulyanov in epub, fb2, txt, rtf, pdf formats for iPad, iPhone, Android and Kindle. The book will give you a lot of pleasant moments and a real pleasure to read. You can buy the full version from our partner. Also, here you will find the latest news from the literary world, learn the biography of your favorite authors. For novice writers, there is a separate section with useful tips and tricks, interesting articles, thanks to which you can try your hand at writing.

Free download of the book "The Origin of Ukrainian separatism" Nikolay Ulyanov

In the format fb2: Download
In the format rtf: Download
In the format epub: Download
In the format txt:

The origin of Ukrainian separatism. "The origin of Ukrainian separatism" Nikolay Ulyanov Ulyanov the origin of Ukrainian separatism download djvu

Read also

Editorial

Foreword (from the author)

Introduction

Zaporozhye Cossacks

About the book "The Origin of Ukrainian Separatism" Nikolay Ulyanov

Free download of the book "The Origin of Ukrainian separatism" Nikolay Ulyanov