Young Ukraine
The Brotherhood of
Saints Cyril and Methodius in Kiev,

George S.N. Luckyj

University of Ottawa Press, 1991

The Constantine Bida Lectures, 1986
University of Ottawa Ukrainian Studies No. 13

Dedicated to the memory of Valeriy Marchenko and Volodymyr Mijakovskyj


Introduction 1
Chapter I — Antecedents 3
Chapter II — The Brethren 15

  • Mykola Kostomarov 16
  • Mykola Hulak 19
  • Panteleimon Kulish 20
  • Taras Shevchenko 22
  • Vasyl Bilozersky and Others 24
    Chapter III — Ideology and Organization 29
    Chapter IV — The Program 45
  • The By-laws 45
  • The Rules 46
  • The Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People 47
  • Appeal to Brother Ukrainians 51 Appeal to Brother Russians and Poles 51
  • Bilozersky's Note 53

    Chapter V —The Trial 57

  • Petrov's Denunciation 57
  • The Arrests 58
  • The Testimony 59
  • The Sentencing 66
  • Orlov's Report 67
  • Chapter VI — The Aftermath 73

    Appendices 85

    1. The By-laws of the Slavic Society 85
    2. The Chief Rules of the Society 86
    3. God's Law or The Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People 88
    4. Appeal to Brother Ukrainians 100
    5. Appeal to Brother Great Russians and Poles 101
    6. Bilozersky's Note 102
    7. Excerpts from the Report by Count A. F. Orlov 106

    Bibliography 111
    Index 113


    This brief monograph tells the little-known story of the Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius, a circle of Ukrainian intellectuals active in Kiev from 1845 to 1847. Although it brings to light no new sources of information, relying instead on those that have already been used in the existing Ukrainian and Russian studies on the subject, it offers a new and wider perspective on this secret society. The title "Young Ukraine," used previously by Zynoviy Hurevych in his Moloda Ukraina, underscores the significance of this group in terms of the contemporary "Young Germany" (1830), "Young Italy" (1831), and "Young Ireland" (1840) movements. Romantic nationalism played a dominant part in all of them. While no attempt has been made to compare these Western European movements with that in Ukraine in this monograph, a student of European nationalism will find many interesting parallels with the Ukrainian group. In the nineteenth century there was a vital affinity, if not an actual interplay, between the intellectual currents of a given decade. The Ukrainians came on the stage a little late, but they nevertheless imprinted their ideas and dreams on many generations to come. It was the federalist ideas of the Brotherhood that remained for a long time one of the main themes of Ukrainian intellectual history. Although present in Ukraine prior to the 1840s, this idea was first formally articulated by the brethren. It and the idea of a national cultural revival make up the first modern Ukrainian political platform.

    In addition to ideology, this monograph concentrates on the lives and works of the members of the Brotherhood. Not enough documentary material is currently available to re-create a good picture of the milieu in which the brethren lived. Their biographies are, therefore, sparse, but they stretch from before the time of the members' actual involvement in the organization to their exile and post-exile existence. These first Ukrainian dissidents reacted in different ways to their arrests and trials, and they lived out their lives in relative dignity. I have tried to show more of the human drama than merely the doctrinal [2] divergencies and subtleties, for their story is, on the whole, one of quiet defiance of oppression. The dominant trio in the story—Kostomarov, Shevchenko, and Kulish—possesses a significance in the history of Ukrainian literary and intellectual thought that goes far beyond the individuals' activities in the Brotherhood. Yet this episode, some would argue, does represent the zenith of their youth. The promise shown by these three may never have been fulfilled, but it left a permanent mark on the history of their country. The youthful intensity of those few years meant more, in the end, than the longer, more mature period that followed. Hence, "Young Ukraine" triumphed despite its defeat.

    There is another reason why the Cyrilo-Methodians left a permanent mark on the modern history of Ukraine. Their ideas, despite the fact that they represented a product of the pre-industrial era, exercised a profound influence until the revolution of 1917. The vision of a free Ukrainian republic within a Slavic federation beckoned to many Ukrainian cultural and political activists. So did the Cyrilo-Methodians' philosophy of non-violence and their belief in the wisdom of the common people. Many a Ukrainian political group traced its origin to the affectionately named bratchyky: the brethren. The fact that so few of them were able to resist oppression in their own time and successfully spread their influence also inspired the persecuted Ukrainian dissidents of the 1970s. Vincet amor patriae.

    The Soviet history of scholarly research and publication on the Brotherhood is very disappointing. After Hurevych's book in the 1920s, practically nothing of value has been published on that subject in Soviet Ukraine. The Brotherhood's Christian utopianism and its strong national beliefs were unpalatable to Soviet scholars. Much documentary evidence has remained unpublished, and the brethren have been treated with scorn in scholarly publications. This situation has prevailed up to the time when this book was prepared, as a series of lectures, in 1986. Since then, Gorbachev's glasnost' seems to have abolished taboos in many areas that are now referred to as "blank pages." From recent publications in Soviet Ukrainian literary magazines and scholarly journals, it is clear that the virtual ban on writing about the Brotherhood has, at last, been lifted.

    My thanks are due to the following persons who kindly assisted me in this project: Professors R. Lindheim, G. Shevelov, and O. Subtelny, who read and commented upon the text, and my wife, Moira, who checked and edited the entire copy. The responsibility for mistakes and imperfections is my own.



    The short-lived Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius in Kiev (1845-47) has been regarded as, first, the birthplace of the modern Ukrainian identity; second, an early centre of federalist thought in the Russian Empire; and third, a secret society of religious-minded intellectuals. It was all these things and more. The story of the Brotherhood, supported by documentary evidence, has been told in Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, and French,1 but each time with some degree of reserve and circumspection—dictated not only by the purely political considerations that guide scholarly works in the Soviet Union, but also by the inability to recognize the place of the Brotherhood in Ukrainian intellectual history. Yet the story of the Brotherhood is not merely fascinating in itself, but contains and highlights those specific concerns that have characterized Ukrainians in their historical continuum spanning the last three centuries. The seeds of a Christian-based, federalist, and, at the same time, national-autonomist ideal in Ukraine may be clearly discerned in the eighteenth century. These seeds matured and were harvested during the period of the Brotherhood's existence, but they continued to nurture the Ukrainian intelligentsia for a long time to come. The vestiges of federalist and autonomist ideas may be perceived even today in the Soviet constitution. However transformed, they attest to an evident archetype in the modern Ukrainian psyche.

    The beginnings of this long story go back to the times before modern nationalism was born. In the middle of the eighteenth century, Ukraine was in the final stages of absorption and domination by Russia, which began after the treaty of Pereiaslav in 1654. For more than a century, from 1648 to 1764, the Hetman state, established after a successful uprising against the Poles by the Cossack Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky, continued to exist as a sui generis society of "estates" [4] (Standestaat). The Cossack government, based on regional military regiments, was spread over the Kiev, Bratslav, and Chernihiv palatinates. After 1700 it was limited to the Left Bank of the Dnieper and the Kiev enclave only, with capitals successively in Chyhyryn, Baturyn, and Hlukhiv. A vassal of Poland and, after 1654, of Russia, the Hetman state possessed administrative and legal practices inherited from Poland and Lithuania, which, after the state's demise, survived until the reign of Nicholas I (the Lithuanian Statute was abolished in 1835, and the Magdeburg Law, regulating Ukrainian municipalities, in 1831-35). "Important elements in Ukrainian society," wrote E. Thaden,

    —especially among the burghers, clergy and Cossacks—stubbornly resisted the growing economic and political power of the Polish magnates and szlachta as well as the allure of Polish secular and religious culture and civilization. Orthodox [church] brotherhoods and schools had flourished in the Right-Bank Ukraine during the seventeenth century. In 1632 the Kiev Metropolitan, Peter Mohyla, organized a collegium, which, as the Kievan Academy, was the first institution of higher education for the Orthodox Eastern Slavs and which trained numerous Ukrainian nobles and clergy for political and church careers in the Commonwealth, the Ukraine, and Russia.2

    This Ukrainian contribution to Russian education, mostly in theology, proved to be significant, although short-lived, as Russia became more interested in direct contacts with Western secular culture beginning in the eighteenth century.

    The cultural and political identity of Ukrainians during the Hetman era was under constant pressure and attack by Russia. Despite the promises at Pereiaslav to "grant special privileges to the Cossack Host,"3 the Hetman state was abolished by the tsar in two stages (in 1764 and, finally, in 1781), and the Cossack stronghold of the Zaporozhian Sich was destroyed in 1775 on the orders of Catherine II. Large numbers of the Cossack officer corps (starshyna) were absorbed into the Russian gentry and nobility (dvorianstvo), while the Ukrainian educational system was curbed, abolished (Mohyla Academy was closed down in 1817), and replaced with a Russian one. The parish brotherhood at the monastery of the Epiphany, established in 1616, which was the progenitor of the Mohyla Academy, declined and was closed down. It was the name "brotherhood," with all its historic connotations, that later appealed to the Cyrilo-Methodians, who chose it as a name for their secret organization. While the Mohyla Academy and the brotherhoods declined, the establishment of the first university in Ukraine, in Kharkiv in 1805, was achieved entirely through the efforts of the local gentry.

    The forced integration of Ukraine into the Russian Empire evoked various responses. There were, of course, those who welcomed it and [5] took full advantage of their collaboration with Moscow. A comprehensive study of Ukraine's contribution to Russia from 1750 to 1850 has recently been published.4 It discusses in great detail the Ukrainian input into Russian culture and politics, concluding that the Ukrainians "profited from involvement in a larger community." However, "Ukrainians made a difference in Russia. They strengthened the notion that the empire had a Slavic identity and a culture of its own. Only when the government saddled this idea with the full weight of autocracy did Ukrainian allegiance to the centre diminish."5

    On the other hand, there were also those who resisted this incorporation, who protested against it and fostered autonomist tendencies, including the dream of the restoration of the Hetmanate. Catherine II's Legislative Commission of 1767-68 was attended by the spokesman of the Ukrainian gentry, Hryhory Poletyka, who presented a Ukrainian autonomist argument. Vasyl Kapnist wrote an "Ode to Slavery," "which seems to have been inspired either by the decree of 1783 which ended the free movement of Ukrainian peasants, or, more generally, by the Russian abolition of Ukrainian autonomy."6 What could not be done legally or by intrigue (including a secret mission of a Kapnist to Berlin in 1791 to get Prussian support) was achieved by literature. As well as Kapnist's ode, a romanticized history of the Cossacks, appearing anonymously as "Istoriia Rusov" (The History of the Russes), circulated in scores of manuscript copies in the 1820s and 1830s before it was published in 1846.7 Many other collections of historical documents, treatises, and verses circulated clandestinely.8 In all of this, the cherished memory of the Hetman era was evoked romantically, and with great nostalgia, in the minds of conservatively inclined noblemen, but it was not capable in itself of inspiring a new national movement. That movement had to come from a different source.

    The Napoleonic wars, which were indirectly responsible for the Decembrist uprising (see below), left Ukraine in a much tighter Russian embrace, and it was in the second decade of the nineteenth century that the cross-pollination of federalist and autonomist ideas between Ukraine and Russia occurred. The most striking examples of this are the histories of the United Slavs and the Decembrists. The secret "Society of United Slavs" was organized in Ukraine in 1823. The name was borrowed from the Masonic lodge Les Slaves Reunis, founded in Kiev in 1818. The Freemasons were numerous in Ukraine, and the "father" of modern Ukrainian literature, Ivan Kotliarevsky, was a member of a lodge in Poltava. The Masons preached moral self-improvement, but they also had international connections and some social concerns. The founding members of the United Slavs were young officers serving in the army in the Left-Bank Ukraine. Among them, the most conscious of his Ukrainian roots was second lieutenant Ivan Horbachevsky. Together with his friends, the brothers Andriy and Petro Borysov and a [6] Pole, Julian Lublinski, he formulated some of the principles for a Slavic federation. Those were:

    the liberation of all Slavic tribes from despotism; the eradication of national hatreds existing between some of them; bringing of the lands [they] inhabited into a federal union. It proposed to define exactly the "boundaries of each state, introduced a form of democratic government for each [people]; established a congress to administer the affairs of the union and to make necessary changes in the common laws, while leaving the states to concern themselves with internal organization and their particular legislation.9

    It is interesting, however, that the proposed Slavic republican federation was to embrace seven Slavic nations and the Hungarians, who were counted as Slavs. Omitted was Ukraine—the country where this declaration was written. It is clear that the members of the United Slavs who were from Ukraine considered themselves to be Little Russians rather than Ukrainians.10 The society was, however, aware, as no other group before it, of the multinational character of the Russian Empire. The group wanted to see serfdom abolished; at the same time it declared itself against violent revolution as a means of social change. Military revolutions, Horbachevsky wrote, have dangerous consequences: "instead of being the cradle of freedom . . . they become its coffin."11 Therefore, like most of his comrades, he advocated the establishment of small village schools, to instill into the peasants a sense of civic obligation and thus help to bring about desired reforms.

    In view of the moderate program of the United Slavs, it is indeed ironic that in September 1825, after long discussions, the society merged with a much more militant organization known as the "Southern Society," which formed the Ukrainian wing of the Decembrists. This first Russian revolutionary group consisted of two branches—the "Southern Society" and the "Northern Society"—and was given the name "Decembrists" after the abortive uprising on the Senate Square in St. Petersburg on December 14,1825, and the mutiny of the Chernihiv regiment in Ukraine in the last days of December of that year. In both instances force was used, unsuccessfully, to bring about a revolution. The Decembrists might have written a more memorable chapter in Russian history had their uprising been better prepared. As it happened, this military revolution was very short-lived, although it imprinted itself on the Russian national memory, beginning with Pushkin's poem "Message to Siberia." The legend of the Decembrists was equally strong in Ukraine, where, as previously mentioned, the Chernihiv regiment staged a successful rebellion until it was defeated by loyalist forces at Bila Tserkva. When the United Slavs combined, shortly before the uprising, with the Southern Society, they "merged with an organization whose centralist and Great Russian bent was contrary to their basic idea of a Slavic federation."12 Yet imbued with revolutionary fervour, [7] they fought together at Bila Tserkva and reaped the harvest of their impatience in defeat.

    The leader of the southern Decembrist rebellion was colonel Pavel Pestel, a Russian of German descent. His program aimed at a political reorganization of the Empire, with increased power for the Russian state. He wanted to combine some of the peculiarly Russian ideas with Western influences. In his principal work Russkaia pravda (The Russian Law), he discussed at length "basic notions concerning the government and its division into sovereign power and state administration." On the question of the territory and territorial division of the state, he stated unequivocally that "the Russian state is one and indivisible,"13 rejecting completely any federal organization. According to Pestel, "Ukraine. . . never enjoyed and never can enjoy [its] own independence."14 Ukrainians were but one "variety of the native Russian people," the other being the Russians, the Little Russians, the Rusnaks (inhabiting the provinces of Kiev, Podolia, and Volhynia), and the Belorussians. Therefore, the rule was to be established that all the inhabitants "of the provinces of Vitebsk, Mogilev, Chernigov, Poltava, Kursk, Kiev, Kharkov, Podolia and Volhynia are to be considered native Russians and not be known by any particular name."15 This declaration of Pestel on the nationalities could have come from the tsar. Yet it must not be treated merely as an expression of Russian chauvinism, but as an awareness that Ukrainian national consciousness did not then exist. His reforms of the Russian state totally ignored national interests and rested on the old dictum of "the one and indivisible Russia."

    The Northern and Southern Societies developed out of the "Union of Welfare" (1818-21) and the "Union of Salvation" (1816-18). These, in turn, incorporated into their programs the philosophy of the German patriotic society, the Tugendbund. The ideologies of these organizations focused on moral regeneration and national welfare, but they led, occasionally, to federalist goals, such as those embodied in the Northern Society's constitution of Nikita Muravev. This constitution favoured a constitutional monarchy and a federal state, the latter idea borrowed from the constitution of the United States.16 It was this second provision that evoked strong objection by Pestel, and it therefore remained ineffective.

    As has been pointed out, the military revolt of the Decembrists did not fit well with the moderate objectives of the United Slavs and of those Ukrainians in the Southern Society who let themselves be guided by their Russian comrades. The Russians, to be sure, were propelled to act in December of 1825 by the sudden opportunity that was created by the death of Alexander I and the taking of the oath of allegiance to the new Emperor, Nicholas I, set for December 14. Originally, the armed uprising planned by the Decembrists was to take place in 1826. Putting the date of it ahead, the poorly prepared organizers suffered a defeat. [8] Five leaders were condemned to death and hanged in July 1826, and 121 individuals received various sentences.

    Apart from the brothers Borysov and Ivan Horbachevsky, among the 51 members of the United Slavs was Yakiv Drahomanov, the uncle of the famous Ukrainian federalist, Mykhailo Drahomanov (1841-95). None of them, however, represented a Ukrainian point of view in these societies. It is ironic that at one gathering of the Decembrists, the Ukrainian point of view was expressed by a Pole, the writer Tymko Padura. Apparently, during a "Slavic conference" in Vasylkiv in 1825, Padura, who represented the Poles, pointed out that the assembled delegates had forgotten the interests of their hosts—the Ukrainians.17 He then, in the words of a scholar, "heatedly agitated for the recognition of Ukrainian autonomy during political negotiations with the Decembrists in Ukraine."18

    During the trial of the Decembrists, when various revolutionary circles spawned by the Southern Society were investigated, some light was shed on the activities of Vasyl Lukashevych, marshal of the nobility from the Pereiaslav region. Lukashevych's activities were disclosed in connection with the testimonies of Matvei Muravev-Apostol and Sergei and Matvei Muravev. In the documentary collection Vosstanie dekabristov (The Uprising of the Decembrists) in 17 volumes, we read in a footnote the following item:

    It was disclosed before the Commission that. . . the Pereiaslav marshal, Lukashevych, created a new Little Russian society and that it seemingly had the goal of separating this land [Ukraine] from Russia and joining it to the independent Kingdom of Poland. But these testimonies [by Sergei and Matvei Muravev], based on guesswork, were found to be unjustified.19
    We know very little about Lukashevych, except that he was a member of the Masonic lodge Les Slaves Reunis, mentioned above, and that, reportedly, he was accused in 1807 of raising a toast to Napoleon. He also is said to have masterminded a Little Russian secret society, of which no details are available, except that a "catechism" of it existed, in which to the question "where is the sun rising?" the answer was "in Chyhyryn" (the ancient capital of the Hetman state).20 Perhaps this was one of these few secret societies that remained secret. Some scholars even suggest that Lukashevych deliberately stayed away from the Decembrists, presumably to maintain his own authority.21 There is little doubt that Lukashevych, who was found innocent at the trial of 1826 but who remained confined to his estate in Baryshpil, had many kindred souls in the Left-Bank Ukraine—where autonomist traditions, as expressed by the "Istoriia Rusov" and as evidenced in various activities of the descendants of the Cossack starshyna, dating from their suggestions for the law of Novoe ulozhenie (The New Code) in 1767 and [9] extending to such prominent activists as A. Chepa, V. Poletyka, T. Kalynsky, and A. Khudorba,22 were well and alive.

    As so often occurred in Ukrainian history, before and after the era of the Decembrists, tsarist oppression brought forth a strong, if subdued, reaction. The measures taken by the Russian government after the abolition of the Hetmanate continued to be designed to eradicate Ukraine's autonomy. The introduction of a Russian administration in the former Hetman state in 1781, the abolition of the name of the governorship of Little Russia, and many similar measures'were not accepted without protest. What Hryhory Poletyka and his son Vasyl did to defend Ukraine's interests through legal channels, others, like Lukashevych, did by forming secret societies. Like the members of the United Slavs, these Ukrainian autonomists came from the impoverished gentry and were often immersed in the lives of ordinary people. They came from a different social and ethnic milieu than most Russian Decembrists, who were officers in the elite regiments. Their interests were different from those of their Russian colleagues, but they were as yet unable to articulate them. In the December storm of 1825, they were simply swallowed up by their Russian counterparts and propelled towards rebellion and defeat. Two decades had to pass before their ideological descendants, fired by a new nationalism, would again try to restructure the Empire.

    Instead of a political ideology suitable for their own country, the Ukrainian Decembrists offered accounts of a strong sentimental attachment to their native land. Ivan Horbachevsky's memoirs contain few impressions of Ukraine, apart from the memory of his mother, nee Konyska, a "true Little Russian" who was very religious. In a letter to Obolensky, Horbachevsky complained of Ukraine's past social and national oppression.23 The memoirs are full of details of conspiratorial activities and strongly reiterate the author's view "that after the revolution (perevorot) the thoughts of the Slavic Union will be impelled with renewed force to liberate all the Slavic peoples."24 In a letter written from exile in 1861, Horbachevsky admits that he "sometimes dreams of my Little Russia and longs for her,"25 but this nostalgia is temporary.

    The Decembrist Matvei Muravev-Apostol (1795-1886), a member of the Southern Society, also had very strong links with Ukraine, attested to in his memoirs. His grandfather had married the daughter of the Ukrainian Hetman Danylo Apostol, hence the latter name was added to the family name of Muravev.26 Muravev-Apostol's estate was in the picturesque Khomutets area in the Myrhorod district of Poltava province. The place is fondly remembered by him: "Near Khorol, in Khomutets, where the road from Khomutets divides into one going to Bakumovka and the other to Obukhivka, there stands, according to Little Russian custom, a wooden cross. On my way back I rested near the cross. That is where I would like to be buried."27 Muravev-Apostol was the chief liaison between the Southern and Northern Societies, [10] and he was present at the negotiations between the Southern Society and the Polish Patriotic Society in Ukraine. When, at that meeting, it was agreed that after the revolution some areas of Ukraine should be given to Poland, Muravev-Apostol noted in his memoirs that "I will be the first to object to playing dice with the fate of my country."28

    Nativist sentiment such as this can be a powerful stimulus to creativity, whether in the field of poetry or of history. On October 21,1825, the Decembrist O. von der Bruggen wrote a letter from the estate of his father-in-law in Ukraine to another Decembrist, the poet Kondrati Ryleev: "I will do my best to supply you with materials about Little Russian history. I have such a history in mind, written by Konysky's contemporary, Khudorba . . . ."29 As it turned out, this promise was never kept because of the stormy events that followed. But it is the Russian Decembrist Ryleev who made a lasting contribution to the Ukrainian cause through his poetry. Ryleev lived for a time in Ukraine and had a Ukrainian wife.30 Although he regarded Ukraine as an inseparable part of Russia, Ryleev showed Ukrainian historical heroes devoted to liberty in his "Ukrainian" poems, especially in "Voinarovsky" (1824). Ukrainian rebels in the eighteenth century (Mazepa, Voinarovsky) inspired Ryleev to send a message of hope (but also of doom) to his Russian revolutionary friends on the eve of the uprising. A Ukrainian friend of Ryleev, Mykola Markevych, wrote to him, expressing his deep appreciation of the poems dealing with Ukraine. He assured Ryleev that "in many [Ukrainian] hearts the old force of feeling and devotion to the fatherland has not diminished. You will still find among us the spirit of Polubotok."31 But, as Osyp Hermaize rightly pointed out, "this 'spirit of Polubotok' was not translated into any political activity; it remained as an accessory to the romantic moods of the Ukrainian gentry and intelligentsia."32 Ryleev's poems later influenced the Ukrainian Romantics, and the Decembrists were glorified by Taras Shevchenko.

    About a decade after the publication of Ryleev's poems, a group of young Ukrainian intellectuals in Kharkiv formed a circle around Izmail Sreznevsky, who was himself a Russian, but deeply in love with Ukrainian folklore and language. He embraced the Ukrainian cultural cause with the zeal of a convert. In 1831 he published Ukrainsky almanakh (Ukrainian Almanac), a miscellany of original poetry and folksongs, and later, in 1833-38, he published a collection of the dumy, Zaporozhskaia starina (Zaporozhian Antiquity). Among the members of his circle who in the history of Ukrainian literature are regarded as the "Kharkiv romantic school"33 were the poets Levko Borovykovsky, Amvrosii Metlynsky, and Mykhailo Petrenko. In his master's dissertation (1836-37), Sreznevsky defended the right of all Slavic peoples to self-determination, and his doctoral thesis (1838) was rejected because it was regarded as too radical, espousing the argument that the people (narod) [11] were the foundation of government. Among Sreznevsky's young students was Mykola Kostomarov. Undoubtedly his teacher's views coloured much of Kostomarov's thinking. However, the Kharkovites must be regarded as both Ukrainian and Russian intellectuals at the same time. Ukraine was their homeland (rodina) and the chief object of their studies, but their loyalty to Russia (otechestvo) was unswerving, and their national and social consciousness was somnolent. None of the so-called Ukrainian Decembrists, the members of the Kharkiv circle, or, finally, those Ukrainian literati who wrote in Russian on Ukrainian themes in the 1830s (Gogol, Somov) displayed any signs of Ukrainian political consciousness. Yet when the second wave of Ukrainian activities rolled once more over the same shore twenty years later, in the mid-1840s, it left different markings on the shore, markings unintelligible to us without any knowledge of the first tide. [12]

    Notes to Chapter I

    1. V. Semevsky, "Kirillo-Mefodievskoe obshchestvo, 1846-1847," Russkoe bogatstvo, 5-6 (1911), reprinted in Golos minuvshego, 11-12 (1918); M. Vozniak, Kyrylo-metodiivske bratstvo (Lviv, 1921); D. Bahalii, Shevchenko i kyrylo-metodiivtsi (Kharkiv, 1925); Z. Hurevych, Moloda Ukraina. Do visimdesiatykh rokovyn Kyrylo-Metodiivskoho Bratstva (Kharkiv, 1928); J. Goiabek, Bractwo Sw. Cyryla i Metodego w Kijowie (Warsaw, 1936); G. Luciani, Le livre de la genese du peuple ukrainien (Paris, 1956); P. Zaionchkovsky, Kirillo-Mefodievskoe obshchestvo (Moscow, 1959); H. Serhienko, T. H. Shevchenko i kyrylo-mefodievske tovarystvo (Kiev, 1983). The three-volume collection of documents on the Brotherhood announced in Kiev in the 1960s has not appeared.

    2. E. C. Thaden, Russia's Western Borderlands, 1710-1870 (Princeton, 1984), p. 36.

    3. G. Vernadsky, A History of Russia (New Haven, 1944), p. 84.

    4. David Saunders, The Ukrainian Impact on Russian Culture: 1750-1850 (Edmonton, 1985).

    5. Ibid., p. 253.

    6. Ibid., p. 22.

    7. Anonymous, "Istoriia Rusov ili Maloi Rossii, Sochinenie Georgiia Koniskogo Arkhiepiskopa Belorusskogo," Chteniia v imperatorskom obshchestve istorii i drevnostei russkikh pri moskovskom universitete (Moscow, 1846).

    8. See O. Ohloblyn, Liudy staroi Ukrainy (Munich, 1959).

    9. I. Gorbachevsky, Zapiski i pisma 1.1. Gorbachevskogo (Moscow, 1925), p. 57.

    10. See H. Lemberg, Die nationale Gedankenwelt der Dekabristen (Koln-Graz, 1963), pp. 144-47.

    11. Gorbachevski, Zapiski i pisma I.I. Gorbachevskogo, p. 58.

    12. M. Raeff, The Decembrist Movement (Englewood Cliffs, 1966), p. 9.

    13. Ibid., p. 136.

    14. Ibid., p. 135.

    15. Ibid., p. 141.

    16. A. Mazour, The First Russian Revolution (Berkeley, 1957), pp. 88-94.

    17. O. Hermaize, "Rukh dekabrystiv i ukrainsrvo," Ukraina, 6 (1925): 33.

    18. Ibid.

    19. M. Nechkina, ed., Vosstanie dekabristov, Vol. 17 (Moscow, 1980), p. 30.

    20. See M. Lysenko, "Do pytannia pro Malorosiiske Tovarystvo," Ukrainsky istorychny zhurnal, 4 (1967); M. Buzhynsky, "Do biohrafii V. L. Lukashevycha," Za sto lit, 3 (1928).

    21. O. Ohloblyn, "Malorosiiske taemne tovarystvo," Entsyklopediia ukrainoznavstva, Vol. 4 (Munich, 1962), pp. 1451-52.

    22. Ohloblyn, Liudy staroi Ukrainy.

    23. Gorbachevsky, Zapiski i pisma I. I. Gorbachevskogo, pp. 294-95.

    24. Ibid., p. 60.

    25. Ibid., p. 267. See also L. Dobrovolsky, "Dekabryst Horbachevsky yak memuaryst," Dekabrysty na Ukraini, Vol. II (Kiev, 1930), pp. 106-107.

    26. Memuary dekabristov; luzhnoe obshchestvo (Moscow, 1982), p. 187.

    27. Ibid., p. 199.

    28. Ibid., pp. 221, 317.

    29. Ohloblyn, Liudy staroi Ukrainy, p. 288. Konysky was believed to be the author of "Istoriia Rusov." Khudorba's history has not been preserved.

    30. See G. Luckyj, Between Gogol' and Sevcenko (Munich, 1971), pp. 81-85; also J. Pauls, "Ukrainian Themes in Ryleev's Works," Wiener Slawistisches Jahrbuch (Vienna, 1972).

    31. "K literaturnoi i obshchestvennoi istorii 1820-1830 gg," Russkaia starina, 12 (1888): 599. The Hetman Pavlo Polubotok (1660-1724) of Ukraine was a staunch autonomist.

    32. Hermaize, "Rukh dekabrystiv i ukrainstvo," p. 32.

    33. Cf. A. Shamrai, Kharkivski poety 30-40 rokiv XIX stolittia (Kharkiv, 1930).


    The Brethren

    The Ukrainian intellectuals who were to form the Cyrilo-Methodian Brotherhood were not yet in their teens at the time of the Decembrist uprising. But, like the Ukrainian Decembrists, they came, with some notable exceptions, from the ranks of the impoverished gentry. One of these exceptions was Taras Shevchenko, born a serf, although a distant descendant of the Cossacks. Posiada, too, was of peasant origin. Kulish came from Cossack stock. Others grew up on small estates or were sons of petty gentry. Most were educated or were actually university students. Unlike the originators of the Russian intelligentsia, who came to be known as raznochintsy (people from various ranks), the kernel of the Ukrainian intelligentsia was more homogeneous. On the one hand their country was marching towards an incipient capitalist system, with growing manufacturing and industry; on the other hand, and perhaps because of this march towards capitalism, it was experiencing severe oppression of the peasantry. The small gentry were also squeezed by these developments, and their sons sought new professions in the cities. Urbanization kept pace with these demands, and Kiev in 1840 had forty thousand more inhabitants than a decade before. Kiev had had a university since 1834. The University of Kharkiv was established in 1805.

    There is no doubt that social and economic conditions played their part in the intellectual make-up of the brethren. However, what ultimately decided the kind of role they played within the Brotherhood was the diverse interplay of individual personalities and their inborn talents. This is why one peasant, Shevchenko, was a poet of genius, while the other peasant, Posiada, remained obscure; why Kostomarov became a famous historian and Pylchykiv remained an ineffectual intellectual. Genetics, not economics, often held the key to their personalities and achievements. Individual biographies may help to see their [16] accomplishments more clearly. A Ukrainian biographical dictionary remains to be written.

    Mykola Kostomarov

    The founder of the Brotherhood, Mykola Kostomarov, had a Russian father and a Ukrainian mother. Kostomarov's father, Ivan Petrovich, came from an old Russian noble family. He had served in Suvorov's army before retiring to an estate in Yurasivka, Kharkiv province, where Kostomarov was born on May 4, 1817. Ivan Petrovich deserves mention for several reasons. He was a man with intellectual interests, and he read the French philosophers, especially Voltaire, voraciously. Moreover, he tried to follow some of the precepts of the Enlightenment on his estate, especially in relation to his peasants, with whom he engaged in discussions about the virtuous life. Short-tempered as he was, he would occasionally be rather cruel to them, only to apologize later. Another rather unconventional side of his character came to light when he married a Ukrainian peasant girl. Liaisons between landlords and village girls were common in those days, but marriages were not. Out of this union the young Kostomarov was born, before the wedding, and he became deeply attached to his mother. Kostomarov's father died suddenly when the boy was eleven years old: Ivan Petrovich's peasants, who took some of his rationalist and agnostic teaching too literally, murdered him in July 1828, maintaining his death was a riding accident. In 1833 one of the murderers confessed to the deed, asserting that the landlord's teaching that there was no life after death had led them to it. This was not the first or last time in Russian history that misunderstanding between reforming landlords and their peasants led to such tragic results. The motives for Ivan Petrovich's murder are clearly spelled out in his son's autobiography, and they contradict the standard Soviet explanation of this case as revenge taken by the villagers on a cruel master. Before his father's death the young Kostomarov was, for a while, at a school in Moscow. Had his father lived, the son would probably have continued his Muscovite education. Now, however, he found himself under the sole protection of his helpless mother, who could not legally inherit her husband's estate, although she did receive a financial settlement of fifty thousand rubles and her son's freedom. She showed great resourcefulness in looking after her son, who was placed in a school in Voronezh, which offered little education to this precocious youth. He managed to educate himself by wide reading, displaying in his student years a phenomenal memory. He spent his vacations with his mother, exploring the Ukrainian countryside and learning Ukrainian from the speech of the peasants. When he was sixteen years old, he gained entrance to the University of Kharkiv. [17]

    The milieu of this university played a decisive role in forming the Ukrainian orientation of the young Kostomarov. It was there that he came into contact with what is sometimes called the first Ukrainian revival, the second being the Kiev revival of the 1840s in which he was also destined to play a leading part. Kostomarov was the only one of the brethren who went through this Kharkiv period. The Ukrainian revival in Kharkiv was connected with the founding of the university in 1805 and the periodical publications Ukrainsky vestnik (Ukrainian Herald, 1816-19), Ukrainsky zhurnal (Ukrainian Journal, 1824-25), and Ukrainsky almanakh (Ukrainian Almanac, 1831). The leaders of the Ukrainian movement were the rector of the University, Petro Hulak-Artemovsky (1790-1865), a professor at the university, Amvrosiy Metlynsky (1814-70), and the above-mentioned professor Izmail Sreznevsky (1812-80). HryhoryKvitka (1778-1843), who lived near Kharkiv, was the leading writer of the period, the first to publish prose works in Ukrainian. Metlynsky and Sreznevsky were ethnographers who published some collections of Ukrainian folk poetry and also wrote poems. All this created an atmosphere in which Ukrainian interests flourished.

    At the time Kostomarov entered the University of Kharkiv, that institution was in decline, and he did not like his professors. Among them was the writer Hulak-Artemovsky, in whose home Kostomarov was for a time a boarder. In 1835 a new professor of history, Mikhail Lunin, himself a follower of Herder, impressed Kostomarov with his knowledge of German history and philosophy. It was Lunin who encouraged Kostomarov to enter the field of historical research. Kostomarov undertook this research immediately after leaving the university in 1836, when he worked in the archives of the Ostrogozhsky Cossack regiment in Ostrogozhsk. Simultaneously, for a brief time, he joined a dragoon regiment as a cadet. In 1837 Kostomarov returned to Kharkiv, determined to write a dissertation. His first attempt (the topic was the church union of Brest) in 1842 did not meet with Hulak-Artemovsky's approval; although it had been printed and the day of the defence set, the Kharkiv church leaders objected to it, and the whole edition was burned. Kostomarov was forced to select another topic, "On the Historical Significance of Russian Folk Poetry," and this time he defended it successfully in 1844, receiving his master's degree. A year earlier he had been granted gentry status, and this and the university degree enabled him to obtain a teaching position in Rivne. From there he moved in July 1845 to the position of gymnasium teacher in Kiev. It was there that he met the other young Ukrainian intellectuals with whom he founded the Brotherhood.

    Three features characterize Kostomarov's pre-Kievan period. First, he decided to become a historian, but to write history in a new [18] way. "Why is it," he asked himself in his autobiography, "that all histories talk about prominent statesmen, sometimes about laws and institutions, but neglect the life of the people?"1 He was convinced that the lives of ordinary people, the peasants, with their customs and heritage, were the starting point for the historian of the future. He was thus to become the first great populist historian. Secondly, through the Kharkiv milieu, he became a devoted Ukrainian who dedicated himself to the history of Ukrainians, "the people among whom he lived." Having learned Ukrainian, he tried to write poetry in the language. In 1838 and 1840 he published two collections of Ukrainian poems. In 1844, before coming to Kiev, he had written, under the pseudonym Yeremiia Halka, a review of contemporary Ukrainian literature.2 Thirdly, through Sreznevsky and others, he became very much interested in the idea of a Slavic union. He read and translated Czech poetry, planned a journal devoted to "South Rus' and other Slavs," and was a devotee of the Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz. Even before meeting the Kievan intellectuals, his course was set. Temperamentally, Kostomarov was rather neurotic. Mood swings were common, and he must have been a somewhat enigmatic figure among his contemporaries.

    Kostomarov and other brethren were intensely aware of the ideology of the Polish revolutionary nationalists. They not only had met some of them at the University of Kiev but, no doubt, were familiar with the writing of the leading Polish philosophers and historians (Lelewel, Mochnacki, Libelt,3 and Dolega-Chodakowski). The young Kostomarov spent a year (1844-45) teaching in Rivne, Volhynia, where he studied Polish.4 Andrzej Walicki eloquently analysed the manifold Polish nationalist views in a recent study.5 "Polish romantics," he wrote, "influenced by the German idea of 'national originality and distinctiveness (Echtheit),' came to the conclusion that in order to survive the Poles had to prove their cultural vitality by creating a consciously national literature, philosophy, and art."6 This idea was developed and supplanted by the French influence of "political nationalism," leading eventually to Polish messianism, which was bound up with "romantic universalism." "Though the national was subordinated to the universal, yet the realization of specific national tasks came to be recognized as the only possible way of attaining universal progress."7 Although Polish intellectuals (including Mickiewicz) did not recognize the Ukrainians as a separate nationality, but only as part of the multi-ethnic Polish commonwealth, they provided useful models for budding Ukrainian intellectuals. Their belief in activism and moral perfectionism, and in the brotherhood of nations (led, naturally, by Poland), resonated profoundly in Ukraine. Not only did Lelewel's appeal during the 1831 uprising call for "the international solidarity of free peoples," but it was directed to the Russian people as well ("for our and your freedom"). Later, Mickiewicz repeated this call from Paris. Moreover, some of the Polish nationalists were active in Ukraine. Foremost among [19] them in the early 1820s was Zorian Dolega-Chodakowski, who collected Ukrainian folksongs and who was discovering Slavic folk culture. The Polish nationalist philosophy was well developed and complex in its various trends. It was rooted, to some extent, in nostalgia for the "democracy of the gentry" of the past Polish commonwealth,8 just as the Ukrainian national rebirth harkened back to the Hetman era. Both national philosophies anticipated millenarian national and international Utopias.

    Mykola Hulak

    The actual organization of the Brotherhood was chiefly the work of Mykola Hulak, who was temperamentally very different from Kostomarov. He was born in 1822 to the family of a landlord in the Zolotonosha district of Poltava province. His father, Ivan, traced his genealogy to the chief quartermaster of the Cossack Host under the Hetman Doroshenko in 1674. Like Kostomarov's father, Ivan Hulak was an enlightened man for his time. He sent both his sons to be educated at the University of Dorpat (today's Tartu), which was then famous for its German academic staff. The university was founded in 1632 by the Swedish King Gustav Adolf and was re-established in 1802 by tsar Alexander I as a German institution. It was also known for its lively student activities, which until 1834 centred in the famous Burschenschaften. In that year all students (the total enrollment was then over five hundred) were required to swear that they would not belong to secret student corporations. Yet these corporations continued to exist "semi-legally."9 In 1841, when Hulak was already enrolled as a student in the faculty of law, several of these half-legal student bodies were active. Among them was a group of Polish students, Polonia, and Russian students, Ruthenia. Their more spectacular activities included duelling, town processions, and initiations of various kinds, but the organizations, to which young Hulak undoubtedly belonged, also cultivated group discipline, comradeship, a code of honour, and conspiratorial practices. All this provided Hulak with an invaluable training for his future work in the Brotherhood. Moreover, in 1838, some students formed a group (Gelehrte Estnische Gesellschaft) to study their native country of Dorpat—Estonia. This must have struck a corresponding chord in Hulak's heart—for the study of his native Ukraine.

    Hulak was a dedicated student of law and mathematics, and he wrote a long treatise in German on the juridical history of the Pomeranian Slavs, as well as a shorter one, in French, on mathematical equations. He graduated with distinction. His thesis topic was on the rights of foreigners under French, Prussian, Austrian, and Russian law. Although his thesis was in German, we know that he knew well several [20] foreign languages. He had a fine library, which included English editions of Milton, Swift, Goldsmith, and Fielding. All in all, a wide horizon was opening before this young man in his mid-twenties. Already at the University of Dorpat, which was primarily under Polish influence, Hulak had become interested in other Slavs and their interrelations. Later he corresponded with the Czech scholar, Hanka, and began to learn Serbo-Croatian. This is how his friend from the Kiev circle, Vasyl Bilozersky, described Hulak to the tsarist authorities:

    From Dorpat university he brought rare knowledge, love for scholarly pursuits and German honesty and decency. He wanted everything to follow the laws of logic and condemned any action which was contrary to them. In behaviour, he was extremely modest and reserved, which was true of his character, and his actions were marked by honesty and regard for everyone. He advanced his opinions with great circumspection, as if he were not sure of their correctness. Hulak made no attempt to spread the ideas which moved him, but rather was anxious to clarify them for himself.10

    In 1845 Hulak came to Kiev and obtained a minor position in the office of the governor-general. It was at this time that he met Kostomarov, Kulish, and others. Their meetings and discussions were held mostly in Hulak's apartment.

    Panteleimon Kulish

    Although Kulish and Shevchenko later disclaimed their membership in the Brotherhood, there is no doubt that both belonged to it. Kulish was often looked upon as one of the leaders of the Kievan circle, and he provided the group with the intellectual rigour it needed. During the period of greatest activity of the Brotherhood (1846), Kulish was in St. Petersburg, yet he corresponded with the brethren and gave them his advice.

    Kulish was born in 1817 in Voronizh, Chernihiv region, on the khutir (homestead) of an impoverished Cossack family, and he was always very proud of his ancestry. He had a stern and temperamental father and a warm-hearted mother who taught him Ukrainian fables and songs. After his mother's death, the young boy was strongly influenced by a neighbouring landowner, Tetiana Muzhylovska, who supported young Kulish's education. Although he never finished school, Kulish was a gifted student and read widely. In 1838 he enrolled at the University of Kiev, but he stayed there only a short while. A picture of the moral corruption and academic mediocrity of the supervisor (Bibikov) and staff of the university at that time may be gathered from the very informative Polish memoirs of Tadeusz Bobrowski.11 An especially unsavoury character in this milieu was Kulish's friend and benefactor, Mykhailo Yuzefovych. Kulish started writing short stories [21] and poems and had the good fortune to see some of them in print, due to the intercession of his influential friend, Mykhailo Maksymovych, who helped Kulish to publish short stories in Russian in his journal Kievlianin (The Kievan). Mykhailo Yuzefovych obtained a teaching position for Kulish in Lutsk and supported the publication of Kulish's first novel in Russian, Mykhailo Ournyshenko (1843). Kulish also wrote a long poem in Ukrainian, Ukraina (1843). Even before meeting Shevchenko and Kostomarov, Kulish was making a definite place for himself as a promising young writer and ethnographer.

    Kulish was by nature extremely meticulous and hardworking, and he applied himself well to his many pursuits. Foreign literature, especially the novels of Sir Walter Scott, attracted him, and in his own works he clearly emulated foreign models. A great influence on him in the early 1840s was his friend the Polish writer Michal Grabowski, who was of a conservative, Slavophile persuasion. Once again, it was Polish influence that propelled Kulish to the study of the Slavic world. He was no nationalist, and in 1844 he wrote to Yuzefovych: "the political life of Little Russia ended long ago. . . . Little Russia will soon merge with Russia. This is just as well, but what is not well is that [Ukraine] . . . has not enriched its culture with new elements, gained at the time of its independent existence."12 To preserve this culture was the task of Ukrainian scholars such as Kulish. He devoted himself to it wholeheartedly, concentrating on two fundamental aspects of this culture: folklore and history. He collected songs and legends, but he also engaged in historical research on the Cossacks.

    Unlike Hulak, who was no artist, Kulish was deeply aware of the new currents of Romantic ideology. Ukrainian Romanticism, still mostly represented by the so-called "Kharkiv school" (Metlynsky, Sreznevsky, Petrenko), was rather weak. Then, suddenly, a new and outstanding work appeared—Kobzar (The Minstrel) by Taras Shevchenko, which was published in 1840. To Kulish and others, this book offered proof that a new Ukrainian genius was at work, and that the future of Ukrainian literature and the Ukrainian literary language was assured. To a rationalist like Kulish, this explosion of Romantic imagination was bewildering. Later on, he would describe it as "the sound of the archangel's resurrecting trumpet."13 Kostomarov, too, according to another source, "was stunned."14 Both these men, by temperament more scholars than writers, were astounded by Shevchenko's performance, but it was Kulish who, in 1844, wrote to Shevchenko: "Let us, who began to open our countrymen's eyes, co-operate with each other, advise one another; otherwise our writing will bring no good."15 In the same letter he advised Shevchenko "not to rattle the sabre," but "to use his head." In other words, the Romantic explosion had to be controlled by rationality: a difficult proposition, but it contained the kernel of Kulish's attitude to the Brotherhood. If he did not hesitate to be a mentor to Shevchenko, why would he not lead a group of friends? To [22] give an example of his attitude towards the current situation, Kulish published in 1846, at the Brotherhood's expense, a "pocket book for landlords,"16 in which he did not oppose serfdom, but pleaded for the enlightenment of the landlords and for good treatment of the peasants. Obviously, this was a mildly reformist, not a revolutionary, attitude towards social matters. At the same time, Kulish advocated, in another booklet on the history of the Ukrainian people, that the national heritage of Ukrainian culture should be preserved and enhanced. We know, too, that Kulish was a devout Christian and student of the Bible, one lesson of which was to love one's neighbour, something he found difficult to do. Kulish's conservatism was, above all, visible in his own well-ordered private life. He was disciplined, abstemious, and even pedantic—hardly ideal qualifications for belonging to a group of young conspirators.

    Taras Shevchenko

    Shevchenko took no part in the actual organization of the Brotherhood, but, in a manner of speaking, he belonged to it and, in his poetry, became the most outspoken exponent of some, although not the central, ideas of the Brotherhood. At the trial he drew the heaviest penalty of all the brethren, although he was not considered to be a member of the society.17

    Shevchenko was born a serf in 1814 in the village of Moryntsi, in Kiev province on the Right-Bank Ukraine. There is good reason to believe that his ancestors were Cossacks, and his grandfather witnessed the peasant rebels, the haidamaky, in 1768. After a deprived childhood, young Shevchenko became a pageboy to his master, Engelhardt, and travelled with him to Vilno and Warsaw. During this trip to Poland he witnessed the Polish uprising against the Russians in November 1830. This must have left a deep impression on the Ukrainian serf. His master took Shevchenko to St. Petersburg and, in the course of time, apprenticed him to a painter-decorator, as Shevchenko showed great talent for art. In the capital the boy learned to speak Russian properly. In addition to his native Ukrainian, Shevchenko knew Polish. A chance meeting with another Ukrainian painter, Soshenko, during an outing to a public garden provided Shevchenko with a chance to establish a useful connection with the Academy of Fine Arts. The writer Yevhen Hrebinka and Vasyl Hryhorovych, the secretary of the Academy, both Ukrainians, helped Shevchenko with further introductions to the Russian artistic establishment. Finally, moved by the fate of a gifted artist who was a serf, the artist Karl Briullov and the well-known poet Zhukovsky collaborated on a scheme to purchase Shevchenko's freedom. On April 22,1838, after a lottery at which a painting of Zhukovsky by Briullov was sold, Shevchenko became a free man. He immediately [23] enrolled in the Academy of Fine Arts, became a favourite pupil of Briullov, and was about to be launched on a successful artistic career. But simultaneously the poet awoke in Shevchenko, and, in his own words, "I wrote Ukrainian verses, which later fell like a terrible burden upon my poor soul."18 He wrote several poems, one of them a long ballad "Prychynna" (The Bewitched Woman). At the same time he was receiving a good humanistic education at the Academy, studied French, and met many young artists and writers. He had an outgoing and warm personality—Panaev wrote of him, in 1837, that "he was full of life . . . and showed promise of poetic genius."19 Although Shevchenko had many Russian and Polish friends, he stayed close to the Ukrainian expatriates in St. Petersburg. To his brother Mykyta he wrote, in 1839, "please write to me, as I write to you, not in Russian, but in our language."20

    Shevchenko's first volume of poetry, Kobzar (The Minstrel), was published in 1840, thanks to the financial support of a wealthy landowner, P. Martos, and a favourable opinion by the censor, P. Korsakov. This slender, 114-page volume contained eight poems, mostly on folk and historical themes. Its appearance marks the birth of modern Ukrainian literature. It was received with enthusiasm by readers, and seven Russian reviewers praised it with only slight reservations. A year later, Hrebinka published an almanac Lastivka (The Swallow), in which Shevchenko published some poems. This almanac was bitterly attacked by the leading Russian critic, Vissarion Belinsky, who attacked the very idea "of a literature written in Ukrainian. To the question "is it necessary and is it possible to write in Little Russian?," Belinsky's answer was a resounding "no."21 In 1842, when Shevchenko published his long poem "Haidamaky," Belinsky again attacked him in no uncertain terms and dismissed the poem with scorn and ridicule. These attacks hurt Shevchenko a great deal, but he remained steadfast on his course.

    In 1843 Shevchenko made an extensive journey to Ukraine, during which he visited wealthy Ukrainian landowners, painted their portraits, and earned some money. In Kiev he met Panteleimon Kulish, and, despite their different temperaments, they became close friends. He visited many historic sites, met two women who fell in love with him (Princess Barbara Repnina and Hanna Zakrevska), and was generally lionized as the brightest young poet of the day. He also visited his native village. The varied impressions of his native land he summed up in these words: "I went everywhere and cried all the time."22 From Ukraine he travelled to St. Petersburg by way of Moscow. Back in the capital he published an album of drawings, Zhivopisnaia Ukraina (Pictorial Ukraine), in 1844. That year also saw the re-publication of the Kobzar and "Haidamaky." At the same time, during the years 1843-45, Shevchenko wrote a cycle of poems not meant for publication. They included a sharp satire of Russian tyranny and the imperial family— [24] "Son" (The Dream, 1844), which was used as evidence against him in the trial of 1847. In the spring of 1845, he obtained permission to travel to Ukraine again. Here he composed more clandestine poems: "Yeretyk" (The Heretic, 1845), "Velyky liokh" (The Great Vault, 1845), and "Poslanie" (Epistle, 1845), all of which showed him at the height of his poetic power. The message of these poems was clear: past injustices must be redressed, and, if necessary, Ukrainians must "break their chains" to achieve liberty. The importance of this revolutionary call will be discussed later in the context of the Brotherhood. From the events of Shevchenko's life prior to 1845, it may be seen that, although in every way he was different from his friends, he was drawn to them by their common Ukrainian background and by a vision of Ukraine that he came to articulate best in his poetry. His influence on them was much greater than their influence on him. Yet their influence was not insignificant; although it encroached on his free poetic spirit, it forced him to share experiences and ideas that he would not have had alone.

    Vasyl Bilozersky and Others

    Because the biographical data on the other brethren are scarce, they will be dealt with as a group. Having come to Kiev from the small towns and villages of the Left-Bank Ukraine, they were thrown together by their common interests, which were shared by very few other Kievans. Their circle was very small, not more than a dozen men at any given time, yet their loyalty to each other was strong. No wonder Kulish referred to them later as a "commune." Although they did not live together, they had their favourite gathering places for discussions or just small talk, and often it was Ukrainian food, especially Poltavan delicacies, that brought them together. Kiev offered many opportunities for walks along its wooded riverbanks. It was also rich in historical monuments, especially churches. It was at the back of St. Andrew's church, in Hulak's apartment, that the meetings of the Brotherhood were often held.

    Vasyl Bilozersky was born in 1825 and was the second youngest member of the Brotherhood. He came from a small landowning family near Borzna, in Poltava province. In the early 1840s he was a student at the University of Kiev, where he met Kostomarov, Kulish, and other intellectuals.23 He was very religious. By nature a dreamer (Kulish referred to him as vialoe sozdanie [a languid being]), he was, however, responsible for drafting a proposal for village schools. In 1846 he obtained the degree of kandidat and was rewarded with a teaching post in the cadet corps at Poltava. Later, he was ready to travel abroad with his sister, Oleksandra, Kulish's wife, and Kulish.

    Opanas Markovych, born in 1822, came from a family of impoverished gentry in Poltava province. In 1846 he completed his studies at [25] the University of Kiev. Early in his youth he started to collect Ukrainian folklore.

    Oleksander Navrotsky was born in 1823 in the village of Antypivka, Zolotonosha district in Poltava province. After finishing a gymnasium in Poltava, he entered the University of Kiev, from which he graduated in 1847. He was a minor poet, unpublished at this time, who, in his own words, "living with the heart, was naively religious."24 Poetry was to him the "organ of life." He was the first cousin of Mykola Hulak and, for a time, shared his apartment. It was there that he met the other brethren.

    Dmytro Pylchykiv, born in 1821 in the province of Poltava, completed his studies at the University of Kiev in 1843. For a while he worked as a librarian and later obtained a teaching position at the cadet corps in Poltava. He was involved, in the 1860s, in the organization of Sunday schools.

    Oleksander Tulub, born in 1824, was a student at the University of Kiev. There is some evidence that, for a while at least, he professed agnosticism, but later he was persuaded to return to his orthodox faith.25

    Ivan Posiada, born in 1823 in the Zinkiv district of Poltava province, was of peasant stock. While studying at the University of Kiev he enrolled in the Brotherhood. Ukraine, in his opinion, was "an unfortunate country, left by all her sons, betrayed by the people. . . . But there are some who would sacrifice their very lives for her."26

    Yury Andruzsky, born in 1827, was the youngest and most impetuous member of the group. He also came from the province of Poltava, finished the gymnasium in Kiev in 1845, and entered the law faculty of the University of Kiev.

    Mykola Savych, born in 1808 in Poltava province, was the oldest member of the group. Coming from a well-educated family, he finished his studies at the University of Kharkiv in 1827. He then joined the army and took part in the Turkish campaign of 1828-29. After leaving the army, he went to Paris and attended lectures at the College de France. He was a professional chemist. The only member of the Brotherhood to have travelled in Western Europe, he believed in emulating it through necessary reforms at home. It is believed that in 1847 he delivered the autograph of a poem by Shevchenko to Adam Mickiewicz in Paris. The fact that upon his arrest a draft proposal on the "liberation of women" was found on Savych27 testifies to his unorthodox views.

    The average age of the twelve known "apostles" of the Brotherhood was twenty-five. Most of them came from the province of Poltava, and most were students of the University of Kiev. They were the flowers of the Ukrainian intelligentsia of their day. Like all intellectuals, they craved power and influence, but this craving was moderated by their deep Christian convictions and a yearning for charity among men. It was not only their friendship but also their common ideology that [26] prompted them to form a secret society. They were betrayed by Oleksiy Petrov, who was admitted to the Brotherhood and who may perhaps be regarded as the thirteenth member of the group—its Judas.

    Notes to Chapter II

    1. M. Kostomarov, Avtobiografiia (Moscow, 1890), p. 28.

    2. "Obzor sochinenii pisannykh na malorosiiskom yazyke," Molodyk, I. Betsky, ed. (Kharkiv, 1844).

    3. Constant police harassment, arrests, and terms of exile in tsarist Russia delayed and interfered with the flow of information and ideas from the West. This may be seen in the fact that a leading Polish writer, Karol Libelt (1807-75), did not become known to Shevchenko until the latter's exile (1857), through the medium of his book on aesthetics, which was translated into Russian. At first Shevchenko took a dislike to some of Libelf s idealist theories, but in the course of reading him he called him a "charming interlocutor" and "faithful friend": T. Shevchenko, Shchodenni zapysy (zhurnal) (Kiev, 1927), p. 408.

    4. V. Miiakovsky, "Kostomarov u Rivnomu," Ukraina, 3 (1925): 46.

    5. A. Walicki, Philosophy and Romantic Nationalism: The Case of Poland (Oxford, 1982).

    6. Ibid., p. 72.

    7. Ibid., p. 75.

    8. Ibid., pp. 11-30.

    9. K. Siilivasha, ed., Istoriia tartuskogo universiteta: 1632-1982 (Tallin, 1982), p. 85. On Mykola Hulak, see Valeriy Marchenko, "Mykola Hulak," Suchasnist, 4, 5 (1982); N. N., "Pamiati Nikolaia Ivanovicha Gulaka," Kievskaia starina, 2 (1900); N. Storozhenko, "Kirillo-Mefodievskie zagovorshchiki," Kievskaia starina, 2 (1906).

    10. "Materialy do istorii kyrylo-mefodiivskoho bratstva," Zbirnyk pamiaty Tarasa Shevchenka (Kiev, 1915), pp. 197-98.

    11. T. Bobrowski, Pamietniki (Lwow, 1900).

    12. V. Shenrok, "P. A. Kulish," Kievskaia starina, 2 (1901): 46.

    13. P. Kulish, "Istorychne opovidannia," Ivory, Vol. VI (Lviv, 1910), p. 377.

    14. A. Korsunov, "N. I. Kostomarov," Russky arkhiv, X (1890): 207.

    15. P. Kulish, Vybrani lysty, G. Luckyj, ed. (New York, 1984), p. 59.

    16. Gladky (Kulish), Karmannaia knizhka dlia pomeshchikov (St. Petersburg, 1846).

    17. Much has been written about Shevchenko's participation in the Brotherhood, the latest Soviet book being H. Serhienko's T. H. Shevchenko i [28] kyrylo-mefodievske tovarystvo (Kiev, 1983). The prevalent Soviet view (with the exception of Zaionchkovsky) is not only that Shevchenko belonged to the Brotherhood, but that he was the leader of its radical left wing. The evidence for this is the alleged influence his poetry had on the central document of the society, Zakon bozhy, the reference to Brotherhood in one of his letters, and testimony about his radicalism at the trial. None is convincing. Although Shevchenko espoused the idea of Slavic unity in some of his poems, this idea was not as important to him as it was to the other brethren. His view of Ukraine's fate was more radical than that held by most members of the Brotherhood. To be sure, his impact on them was profound, but it did not necessarily affect their ideology. Besides, he had no desire to lead a faction, but benefited from the companionship of kindred spirits.

    18. T. Shevchenko, Povne zibrannia tvoriv v shesty tomakh, Vol. V (Kiev, 1963-64), p. 43.

    19. I. P. Panaev, Literaturnye vospominaniia (Leningrad, 1928), p. 170.

    20. Shevchenko, Povne zibrannia tvoriv v shesty tomakh, Vol. VI, p. 10.

    21. V. G. Belinsky, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, Vol. IV (Moscow, 1953-59), p. 171.

    22. Shevchenko, Povne zibrannia tvoriv v shesty tomakh, Vol. VI, p. 34.

    23. V. Petrov, "Shevchenko, Kulish, Bilozersky—yikh pershi strichi," Ukraina, 1-2 (1925).

    24. A. Shrko, "A. A. Navrotsky," Kievskaia starina, 12 (1902): 354.

    25. V. Miiakovsky, "Liudy sorokovykh rokiv," Za sto lit, 2 (1928): 88.

    26. Quoted from archival material by P. Zaionchkovsky, Kirillo-Mefodievskoe obshchestvo (Moscow, 1959), p. 72.

    27. Ibid., p. 97.


    Ideology and Organization

    The brethren's Weltanschauung consisted largely of the then-common Romantic view of life, although some of their beliefs came from the era of Enlightenment. Apparent in the second half of the eighteenth century in Russia was "the emergence of something like an independent public opinion that differed from the views held in enlightened court circles."1 This opinion was permeated by the ideas of Western European Enlightenment (human omniscience, harmonious body of knowledge, emancipation from prejudice and convention) and was expressed through satirical journals like Novikov's Truten (Drone), Radishchev's famous account of his journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow (1790) and the Freemasons. The Freemasons' belief in the universal brotherhood of man, moral self-improvement, and a future golden age is of special interest to those who seek the deeper roots of the Brotherhood.

    Freemasons formed various secret lodges in Ukraine, and there is no doubt that that brand of Masonry which brought people back to religion was part of the spiritual ancestry of the Brotherhood. Freemasonry in Ukraine dates back to 1742, when a Masonic lodge was formed by the Polish szlachta in Vyshnivka, Volhynia. Masons later began to organize in the Left-Bank Ukraine, especially during the reign of the Herman Kyrylo Rozumovsky, who was himself a member of the "Three Brothers" lodge. In the second half of the eighteenth century, many descendants of the Cossack starshyna were Masons (the Kochubeis, the Lomykovskys, the Lukashevyches, the Martoses, the Skoropadskys, the Hamaliias, and many others). Many Ukrainian Masons had studied abroad in their youth. At the end of the eighteenth century, Masonic lodges existed in Kiev, Zhytomyr, Kharkiv, Odessa, Kremenchuk, Nemyriv, and Dubno. The movement intensified in the nineteenth century. In 1818 a lodge called "United Slavs" was organized in [30] Kiev, and another, "Love of Truth," in Poltava. Vasyl Lukashevych was a member of the former, Ivan Kotliarevsky, the noted Ukrainian writer, of the latter. Both lodges had links with the Decembrists and, despite a strong mystical element, favoured passive opposition to the regime. The lodge in Poltava was disbanded in 1819, but it continued to act clandestinely. However, many incidents—Novikov's fall from grace; the tragic arrest, exile, and suicide of Alexander Radishchev (who, although never a member of the lodge, was strongly influenced by the Masons); and, finally, the ban on Masonic lodges in 1822—were all constant reminders that the fruits of the Enlightenment were still forbidden in Russia.

    Among Russian intellectuals, the post-Enlightenment trends manifested themselves in philosophical Romanticism. The Society of Wisdom Lovers, founded in 1823, the interest in German idealist philosophy, particularly Schelling, and Peter Chaadaev's Filosoficheskie pisma (Philosophical Letters, 1831) were all signs of turning inwards to search for native answers to old problems. Coupled with these was the discovery of narodnost (nationality) by Russian and Ukrainian pre-Romantics who were educated in the spirit of Herder. To Herder, the national spirit (Volksgeist) was the determinant of social and individual existence. His philosophy of history reserved a special place for the Slavs. Unlike Hegel, who dismissed the Slavic peoples as "unhistoric," Herder believed that Slavic languages and folk cultures showed great richness and therefore had a place in future historical development. "Ukraine," he wrote, "will become a new Greece; the beautiful sky, the gay spirit of the people, their national musical gifts and fertile land will awaken one day."2 This electrifying promise fell on fertile soil indeed. It was translated by Ukrainian Romantic intellectuals into an effort to collect this rich folklore, to discover the glorious history of the Cossacks, and to provide themselves with a new ideology of nationalism. At first this nationalism had no political overtones. Indeed, it was, one could say, partly sponsored by official Russian policy, enunciated in 1833 by Count Uvarov, who proclaimed "autocracy, orthodoxy and nationality" as its principles. Both Russians and Ukrainians were encouraged to delve into their narodnost and to utilize it in their literature and cultural lives.

    Uvarov was also responsible for the development of Slavic studies in Russia by establishing university chairs at various places and by sending eminent scholars abroad for extended study tours of Slavic countries. He also subsidized some Czech enterprises and spread Russian influence westwards. His efforts at home were directed against the Poles, and his was a successful campaign of Russification. Ukrainians (Bodiansky and to a lesser extent Kulish) were earmarked for Uva-rov's Slavic projects, and the establishment of the University of Kiev in 1834, with Maksymovych as rector, was aimed in the same, anti-Polish direction. However, true as it was, Uvarov's policy involved [31] Ukrainians only indirectly, and it would be wrong to claim that "Kos-tomarov, Kulish, and Shevchenko at the time of their arrests were all playing crucial roles in Uvarov's cultural jihad."3 The Russian design was there, but the Ukrainians played their roles in their own national revival, not in a Russian master plan.

    The official sponsorship of "nationality" later led to a certain confrontation between the narodnosts of the two peoples, but even this occurred in literary, not political, polemics.4 The awakened Romantic imagination fed easily on folklore and history, and there was so much to discover and to publish. Collections of Ukrainian folksongs by Tser-telev (1819), Maksymovych (1827-34), Lukasheyych (1836), and the Polish ethnographers Waclaw z Oleska (1840-49), Zegota Pauli (1814), and Dolega-Chodakowski (1814-19) were widely read and circulated, as were the histories of Ukraine by Bantysh-Kamensky (1822) and Mar-kevych (1842-43). One could say that the entire generation of young educated Ukrainians was completely dedicated to collecting the folklore and history of its country. This gave these young Ukrainians direct experience of what Romanticism preached: contact with and immersion in the lives of ordinary people, whose language was elevated to a literary status. Through this, a fusion with nature and the emotions was effected—another prerequisite of the Romantic philosophy. The wonderful world of folkways, witches, somnambulism, mysteries, nocturnal wanderings, flights, and exaltations, all the very stuff of Romanticism, was open to everybody ready to engage in this kind of research. Yet one Romantic requirement—that of the concomitant alienation of the artist or an intellectual from society—was lacking. On the contrary, Ukrainian Romantics were more than ever united with the people, or so they thought. True, society as such was Russian or russified, and they felt no bond with it. However, their own social lives were inclined to be gregarious rather than lonely, practical-minded rather than melancholy The Ukrainian followers of Byron did not experience his ennui—they remembered only that he died fighting for Greek independence. His great satirical poem "Don Juan" was not translated into Ukrainian until much later. Romanticism came to Ukraine with a time lag, but it ushered in a national revival.

    Of all the Slavs, the Ukrainians were the last to engage in nationalism. The Poles, the Czechs, and the Russians preceded them. After the unsuccessful Polish uprising in 1830, many Polish intellectuals emigrated abroad and set up a centre in Paris revolving around Adam Mickiewicz. A literary society for inter-Slavic relations was created there, and Mickiewicz's lectures at the College de France (1840-44) dealt with all Slavic literatures. One of the most important Polish emigre clandestine organizations was "Mioda Polska" (Young Poland), which had operated from Bern, Switzerland, since 1833. Its emissary, Szymon Konarski, went to Volhynia in 1837 and agitated for a Polish uprising. The following year he was arrested and executed, but the ripples of his [32] activity were felt in Polish Ukraine for a long time to come.5 While discussing the plans of the Ukrainian intellectuals of the 1840s, many of whom were Polonophiles, one must always remember the proximity of Polish revolutionaries. For although those Ukrainian intellectuals did not share the Polish penchant for revolutions, the bonds between Polish and Ukrainian leaders grew stronger because of their common interest in freeing themselves from Russian control.6 Later, in the 1840s and 1850s, we shall see this alliance "consecrated" by Mickiewicz and Shevchenko themselves.7

    Other Slavic luminaries, such as the Czech scholar Pavel Safafik, also participated in the Slavic revival. Jan Kollar's article on literary interrelationships among the Slavs was published in Russia in 1840.8 Another Russian journal, Moskvitianin (Muscovite), published a translation of Safafik's article on Slavic folk literature in 1843. In Russia, it was the Slavophiles who, encouraged by the policy of official nationality, tried to propagate Panslavic ideas, although under Russian leadership. Their leaders were M. Pogodin and S. Shevyrev. Under these influences there arose among the Ukrainians a similar preoccupation both with their own national heritage and with the Panslavic ideology. Panslavism and nationalism went hand in hand. The Russian Slavophiles had a soft spot in their hearts for the Poles, "misguided" though these were by Catholicism, and they venerated the Ukrainian, Gogol, not only for his conservative views, but also because he was a living example of Ukrainian conversion to the Russian cause.

    We have already seen that, during his student days in Kharkiv, Kostomarov had become actively interested in both Panslavism and narodnost. On the one hand he studied Ukrainian history and wrote Ukrainian poetry, on the other he furthered the idea "of the mutual closeness of the Slavs . . . who will form a federation and take their rightful place in history."9 On his way to a teaching post in Rivne in 1844, Kostomarov visited Kiev and, at the home of M. Yuzefovych, met Kulish for the first time. Kostomarov and Kulish soon found that Ukrainian history was their main interest. Kulish, recalling this episode, wrote that in their conversations about Ukrainian history "they were both drunk, but not with wine."10 Later on, at Kulish's apartment, Kostomarov met Bilozersky, Markovych, and Hulak. During their discussions Kostomarov put forward the idea of forming a study group, named after Saints Cyril and Methodius.n We do not know if this plan succeeded, but, if for some reason it did not, there was all the more reason a year or two later to form a secret society with the same name.

    The pre-Brotherhood period in the lives of Kievan young people is best described by Kulish, who, prior to his departure to St. Petersburg, was one of them. Reminiscing in 1882 about those days, he described the group as a sort of "early Christian commune."12 He spoke most eloquently of their goals and pursuits: [33]

    The Kievan youth we are talking about was deeply enlightened by holy scriptures; it was youth of great spiritual purity and was enthusiastic about spreading the gospel of neighbourly love. . . . From this blessed inclination sprang their idea of preaching among the educated Ukrainian landlords the liberation of the peasants from serfdom through Christianity and scientific enlightenment. ... It is also timely to stress that we remembered well the words of St. Paul: "My comrades, do not be children in your minds. Be children in your hearts, but reason as adults." We knew the dishonesty of this world, the blind despotism of our Pilates, our corrupt bookmen and the powerful Pharisees. That is why we had no written statute, agreement or conspectus of our benevolent work. The motto of our missionary work was "Let us be elusive, like air." That is how we conducted our affairs, quietly, up to 1845. In the fall of 1845 I parted with the Kievan apostles of national freedom and accepted a position in the capital.13

    Kulish did not omit to add that, after his departure from Kiev, he learned that the Kievan youth "were composing something else, wider and more dangerous than our early Christian commune."14 Although in 1882 he washed his hands of the events of 1846, in fact he showed, as we shall see, great concern. While in St. Petersburg, Kulish wrote, in Ukrainian, his novel Chorna rada (The Black Council), which was not published until 1857. Viktor Petrov noted that the central message of the novel, expressed in its closing paragraphs, has a connection to the Brotherhood. "The conclusion of the Black Council," wrote Petrov, "is faith in the victory of truth; not force, but truth is victorious."15 This motto, based on the biblical "know the truth and the truth shall make you free," "later became the motto of the Brotherhood and we have Posiada's testimony to the effect that Kostomarov ordered a stamp for the Brotherhood bearing these very words."16

    Young Shevchenko's poetry, especially the poems written in 1844 and 1845, had a great impact on the future members of the Brotherhood. In 1843-44 and again in 1845, he made extended visits to Ukraine from St. Petersburg, where he was studying art. These journeys, during which Shevchenko met both the Ukrainian gentry and the peasants and visited many historic sights, proved a shattering experience. In poems written in Ukraine and not meant for publication, he not only bewailed the loss of the ancient Cossack freedom, but bitterly attacked the present tsarist regime. Tsar Peter I and Tsarina Catherine II were not his only targets, but, in the long poems "Yeretyk" (The Heretic, 1845) and "Kavkaz" (The Caucasus, 1845), the poet developed the theme of Slavic unity and liberation from foreign oppression. The first poem, dedicated to Safafik, depicts the Hussite wars in Bohemia; the second, dedicated to a friend, Yakiv de Balmen, who, as a Russian soldier, was killed in the Caucasus, glorifies the resistance of the subjugated peoples of that area. Together with "Moie druzhnieie pos-lanie" (My Friendly Epistle) and "Zapovit" (Testament), also written [34] in 1845, these powerful poems became the crowning achievement of the mature artist. He often read them to his friends, who copied them, and they left a profound impression upon all who heard them. Kos-tomarov, for one, would later write that "I saw that Shevchenko's muse had torn apart the curtain over the national life. It was both fearful and sweet, painful and entrancing to look inside."17 Bilozersky praised Shevchenko as a "poet of genius." The ideology of these poems could not be described as Panslavic or solely Christian (although at the same time Shevchenko wrote powerful imitations of David's Psalms)—it outdistances the ideology of the Brotherhood. These poems were stridently nationalist and included a call to "break the chains" and "to sprinkle freedom with the foemen's blood" ("Zapovit"). The general, highly romantic, in vocational tone, however, is reminiscent of the later proclamations of the Brotherhood. No wonder some scholars were ready to see the deep influence and actual participation of Shevchenko in "The Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People" (see Chapter IV). The impact of his poetry is undeniable, while his independence within the organization is also understandable.

    Scholars will forever debate the chronology of the Brotherhood, with most agreeing that the society was finally formed by the end of 1846. It was, after all, in December of that year that the student Petrov, who betrayed his brethren to the police a few months later, was admitted. It is of far greater interest to attempt to reconstruct, from the scraps of documentary evidence, the discussions that took place in 1846 between the various brethren. These can shed much light on their ideological differences.

    The central figure in these discussions was Kostomarov, who, early in 1846, was appointed a lecturer in history at the University of Kiev. Some Soviet scholars believe that prior to the Brotherhood there existed in Kiev a circle called "Kievskaia moloda" (Kievan Youth), with Kostomarov as its leader.18 This belief is based on an error that Professor Zaionchkovsky, not knowing Ukrainian, committed in reading another Ukrainian study of the Brotherhood by Zynoviy Hurevych.19 The name Kievskaia moloda is grammatically impossible in Ukrainian, and Kulish, who, according to Zaionchkovsky, is the source of it, uses the correct 'cyivska molodizh, which simply means "Kievan youth." There is no ioubt that there was, generally speaking, a circle of Kievan youth, but t had no specific name until Kostomarov gave it the appellation of the 'Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius."

    A great deal of information about the milieu of the Brotherhood n 1846 comes from Kostomarov's Avtobiografiia (Autobiography). He lescribes how he, Hulak, Bilozersky, and Markovych turned, in their liscussions, "above all to the idea of Slavic mutuality," which, although ather vague in their minds, inspired them with "the boldness to con-true premises and plans."20 [35]

    The mutuality of the Slavic peoples was not limited in our minds to the sphere of scholarship and poetry, but began to appear in images in which, we thought, it should be embodied for future history. Involuntarily, a federal structure came to appear to us to be the happiest current of social life for the Slavic nations. We began, like the ancient Greek republics, or the United States of North America, with the provision that they all be linked firmly together while each would retain its autonomy. . . .In every part of the federation the same basic laws would apply, the same weights, measures and money, absence of customs barriers, freedom of trade, universal abolition of serfdom and slavery in every shape or form, one central power governing relations outside the union, the army and the navy, but with the complete autonomy of each part in relation to internal institutions, self-government, law courts and public education. As the quickest and most effective way to achieve this goal in the distant future it was considered that society must be educated in the spirit of these ideas and it was thus considered necessary to see that people devoted to these ideas, who would be able to imbue the younger generations with them, would be available at universities and other educational institutions. It was with this aim in mind that the idea of creating a society in order to spread the idea of Slavic mutuality through educational means and literature was formed. With this in mind I drafted a constitution for such a society, the most important parts of which were: complete freedom of religions, denominations and nationalities and a rejection of the Jesuit precept of ends justifying means, and then it was made clear that such a society would in no way foster rebellion against existing order. Study of Slavic languages and literatures was placed at the top of education. My friends received these ideas with enthusiasm. It was decided to name the society after the Slavic apostles, Saints Cyril and Methodius. The idea of the formation of a society was soon forgotten, when, after convalescence, I began to teach in the gymnasium and with the arrival of my mother [1 February, 1846] I found another apartment. But the ideas of Slavic mutuality and a Slavic federation have remained deep in our hearts as the most cherished centre of our lives.21

    Kostomarov's account makes it clear that the premise on which the Brotherhood was based went beyond mere ethnos and stipulated not only a cultural but a political program for Ukraine. This, as we shall see in the elaboration of the program (see Chapter IV), is the most historic element in Cyrilo-Methodian ideology. A non-violent but drastic program of reform had been conceived in which Ukraine would be an autonomous republic. The evolutionist, reformist thrust of Kostomarov's thinking is obvious. Some other brethren (in particular Shev-chenko) might have been more radically inclined, but they stayed within the group, which held talks, occasionally, with enlightened Ukrainian landowners. This was done not in order to enroll them as members of the society, but to sound out the possibilities for a wider field of activity. We know of one such meeting, at Hulak's apartment, in February 1846, when Hulak, Kostomarov, and Bilozersky met with [36] Vasyl Tarnovsky.22 Tarnovsky was a liberal-minded landowner, a graduate of the Nizhyn Lyceum and a good friend of Shevchenko. At this meeting the four discussed the gradual alleviation of the peasants' lot, but they also dwelt on the future development of Ukrainian literature, and they decided that a new history or Ukraine should be commissioned. From another source we know that Hulak believed that this project should be entrusted to Kulish rather than to Kostomarov.23 It was becoming obvious that these two men, one in Kiev, the other in St. Petersburg, still had a great deal to say about their common ideology. The first and very important conflict between the brethren may be seen in the correspondence between Kostomarov and Kulish. Only a few letters by Kulish are available, but Kostomarov's arguments to which Kulish's letters provide a rebuttal can easily be reconstructed from them. First of all, Kostomarov was defensive about his half-Ukrainian parentage. This, he thought, hardly entitled him to lead a group of Ukrainians. On May 2,1846, Kulish wrote back: "Why do you say that you are not Ukrainian, that you mingle with us only because of humanist ideals? We give you the right to our citizenship. Besides, your mother is Ukrainian. I could not love you as much as I do if I did not regard you as a Ukrainian. Why should one refuse such a precious name?"24 Kulish's next letter was written in reply to Kostomarov, who described to him in some detail his lectures on history, in which Kostomarov pleaded for a broader rather than a nationalistic approach to the study of history. Kulish replied:

    Young people taking up the study of Little Russian do not in any way thereby deprive themselves of acquiring a European education. Why take the extremes? One can love one's bucolic khutir and grow enthusiastic about the glittering capital more than somebody who does not live on a khutir. One can know by heart all our songs, legends and chronicles and acquire a high degree of European education. I do not understand why, in your opinion, one excludes the other? . . . Your opinion that in order to learn one's language it is necessary to turn one's back on educated society is quite mistaken. You should only look into the houses from which come the educated people in an enlightened society, such as the Bilozerskys, and see how their children are educated and how they learn their native language. I am also now living not entirely among the ignorant (although the educated ones mostly know less than the Ukrainian peasants) and yet I know the Ukrainian language. You say that one can write only peasant tales in that language. Yet before you there is Shevchenko who in that language and in David's psalms expresses feelings worthy of the highest society. . . . Why do you say that we, Ukraino-maniacs, have in our heads as ideals only peasants, swineherds, chumaks and other such slaves? I do not recognize you in these words. They are scolding and nothing else. A Ukrainian empathizes with Achilles and Alexander the Great, with the Crusades and Henrys and Ludwigs and others, but does it follow that he should leave what is his own and only write about them? Let the Greeks and the Germans write about them. It [37] is enough for us to know about it and we do know it. But to neglect one's own half-literate Hectors and Achilleses only because we have no Pericles, Socrates and Napoleon is the height of folly. And can you, Nikolay Ivanovich, say these terrible words: "I do not accuse those who are cold to whatever is theirs. Man strives for the better and what is better is foreign." No, the living element, without which there will be no harmony in your scholarly and poetic endeavours, has dried up in you. My accusation is strong! . . . Even if all the Little Russians active today in the literary field should wilt away, I am confident and not alarmed. New ones will come from the people, fresh hearts will appear whom nature itself will teach love of their native land, and they will start work and bring sacrifices with an enthusiasm not seen before. Christianity should in no way dampen our striving to develop our own native resources, and not without reason a seed has been cast into the soil and has taken deep root already. The worst that can happen is the loss of our language and customs, and you say it is only important for us to be Christians. ... Do not forget that an ordinary Ukrainian is a Christian as long as he keeps all his customs and beliefs. ... As far as progress (and not stagnation) is concerned, it is first introduced by the activists and only later (especially when external conditions improve) will this be transferred to the people. Our writers through their scholarly and poetic works have forced many people to consider how to save what has survived. And Little Russian literature, such as it is, should continue to enlighten the educated but ignorant public and for the uneducated, ignorant public we need textbooks, practical guides and, as far as possible, schools. But it is utterly foolish to question it... .25

    This very strong letter ends with a note of exasperation: "Be punctual, at least once in your life. I swear that I despair because of the chaos with which you deal with my requests."26 Here we see the practical Kulish losing patience with the vacillating and disoriented Kostoma-rov. But more was to come. Writing to Kostomarov on September 11, 1846, Kulish had the following to say:

    I know that you captivate the hearts and souls of your audience with lectures on Little Russian history. But for God's sake, be careful in your conclusions. You cannot tell your students everything you write to me. I am not dismayed by conclusions such as "the bitter and insignificant fate of Ukraine comes from the insignificance of the people's soul." This phrase, like a cobblestone thrown by the strong hand of a Russian (kat-sap), does not worry me, because in my breast I carry the soul of the people and I know that it is not insignificant. However, many may be bewildered by your phrase and others may let their hands drop. Even without this, we have few who are ready to work. If you say that in my book the historical truth is expressed with boldness and greater feeling than at any time in our Rus, then why can't you lecture in this spirit from your chair? . . . You can castigate the meanness of the representative [of the people] but do not call its soul insignificant. This is an unforgivable blasphemy! From Sahaidachny, who cared about the education of the country, to Khmelnytsky, see how our Ukrainian people have appeared. [38] It was not until later, under the destructive influence of the stupid Muscovite government, that the Hetmanate was reduced to the servants and flunkies of His Imperial Majesty.27

    It is quite striking how forthright, passionate, and full of candour Kulish's letters are. Kostomarov, on the other hand, appears hesitant and defensive, especially as far as the Ukrainian cause is concerned. He was, after all, a convert, a neophyte, while Kulish was a Ukrainian to the marrowbone. While Kulish here, as on many other occasions, assumed the role of a mentor, Kostomarov seemed ready to be guided by Kulish's advice, at least for the time being. When the crisis came during the trial, however, Kostomarov's vacillation took the upper hand. Perhaps this was because Kostomarov was a true intellectual and scholar, whose doubt about any proposition remained paramount in his mind. Later his friend Andruzsky was to testify that Kostomarov often sought proofs that undermined his theories. Kostomarov himself, in an unfinished short story "Panych Natalych" (Master Nata-lych), occasionally poked fun at Panslavism and the Slavic revival, and as to the development of Ukrainian literature he remained, at times, quite sceptical. This vacillation on the part of a man who at the same time aspired to be the leader of the Brotherhood was best shown in a meeting of the brethren, described by a Pole, Juljan Bielina-Kedrzycki.28 Sometime in the middle of 1846, Shevchenko tried to arrange a meeting between Kostomarov and Bielina-Kedrzycki, who wrote that Shevchenko "spoke in a mysterious tone and has intrigued me." At first the conversation of the three men was rather general, but

    Shevchenko became impatient. "Tell him, Mykola," he said, "what you have to say." Kostomarov was perplexed and began to reply reluctantly. "As things are, it is bad," he said heatedly. "The Germans, Latins, Anglo-Saxons cling together, but we, Slavs, each walk on our own path, and sometimes we even help to pull the enemy cart. . . ." He then became silent, wishing to know what we would say. There was a pause. "We must do what others are doing," Shevchenko butted in. "You'd better speak clearly, do not hedge. I know your thoughts, let others know them too. You want to shine, yet you hide your lamp under the table." Kostomarov scratched his head. "It is a difficult task. We Ukrainians cannot achieve anything by ourselves—we have no strength. Moscow pulls one way, the Poles are afraid of Moscow and do not trust it—so with whom shall we begin? Even if we had allies—how should we do it?" "You have a wise head, you speak!" Kostomarov continued: "At first we must gather together all the educated Slavic men into one society, let them get to know each other, let them speak about their needs, their particular circumstances. . . . Only then should they act." These words made a strong impression on me. Kostomarov frowned. We all remained silent for a moment. "Such a brotherhood," Kostomarov continued, "should pave the way to a better future, to a federation of Slavs." "Gather Slavic heads together," interjected Shevchenko. "Someone must gather them and count them. . . . They should all unite," said Kostomarov, "under one [39] orthodox tsar, within one orthodox faith." "So this would be a real wedding," Shevchenko replied [ironically]. "You, Mykola, want to drive all the Slavs into the priest's house."29

    Bielina-Kedrzycki noted at the end that he was not satisfied with Kostomarov's talk, and he accused Kostomarov of insincerity. Yet in this conversation Kostomarov was quite sincere, for he did, in fact, vacillate, and the idea of the formation of a brotherhood was far more complex to him than to Shevchenko. After a creative upswing in 1843-45, Shevchenko's poetry in 1846 amounted to two short ballads and a four-line stanza directed against Bohdan Khmelnytsky. The last had anti-Russian overtones, but the entire year was barren as far as political poetry was concerned.

    In February 1846, Kostomarov's mother joined him in Kiev, and they both lived in an apartment off Khreshchatyk. Kostomarov fell in love with a girl of Polish descent, Alina Kragelska, and visited her often, and later that year they became engaged. All these personal involvements, and his temporary sojourn, for health reasons, in Odessa, did not stop him from meeting with friends and planning their common future. One of the most frequent visitors to Kostomarov's and Hulak's apartments was Vasyl Bilozersky, who later, in the fall of 1846, left for Poltava. From there he wrote letters to Markovych, Hulak, and Navrotsky, which reveal his extreme religiosity. In fact, in a letter to Hulak, he mentioned that Kulish, with whom he also corresponded, tried to persuade him to "avoid secular society" and "devote myself to solitude." But at the same time Bilozersky was drawn to society and was gratified that at one party he attended, a Ukrainian woman, Miss Kapnist, was defending Ukrainian literature.30 About the same time he was working on what later came to be known simply as a "note" (zapyska), outlining, in highly emotional tones, grievances that he was expressing on behalf of his country:

    Our dear Ukraine, a country that through bitter sufferings in the cause of truth has earned everlasting esteem, has found herself in terrible circumstances. Annexed [to Russia] on the basis of her own laws, she is suffering a great injustice. Her rights are forgotten, and now, not as a sister nation of the same faith, but as a slave, she must endure the most grievous lot of all peoples. Her fate and her future are on the scales of God. But if the present conditions continue for a long time, when nothing Ukrainian will be esteemed, when a foreign yoke is thrown on us, when "we, O God, feel like foreigners in our forefathers' land, in our own fatherland," then Ukraine will lose her ancient national dignity . . . .31

    Some of Bilozersky's religious ideas, which filled the rest of the "note,"32 were later incorporated in the Brotherhood's platform, which [40] he helped to formulate. However, his letters, as well as those of Mark-ovych and Navrotsky, show their devotion to the cause in rather general and sentimental terms. They were, obviously, not the true organizers of the society. There is strong evidence that Petro Avsenev, a teacher at the Kiev Theological Academy who later became a monk, exercised some influence on Bilozersky.33 The brethren often borrowed books from him and listened to his talks on Christian mysticism. Religion often merged with German Romanticism.

    The true organizers of the society were Kostomarov and Hulak. The former was busy preparing his lectures at the university and was preoccupied with his courtship; the latter was preparing to leave Kiev for St. Petersburg, which he did in January 1847. In view of Kulish's absence, some scholars have expressed doubts as to whether the society was actually formally organized. One of them in fact claims that "the Brotherhood was an informal grouping," and that "the group— to the extent it had ever been a group—had collapsed [in January 1847] Z'34 We must agree that the society was not a completely developed organization, but rather a well-structured "circle" (kruzhok). This may be adduced from the fact that the members varied widely in their views, while agreeing on ultimate objectives. By the middle of 1846 these objectives had been spelled out in: (1) the existence of the platform, which came to be known as Zakon bozhy (God's Law) or Knyhy bytiia ukrainskoho narodu (The Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People); (2) the by-laws (ustav); (3) the rules for membership of people who considered themselves brethren (bratchyky); and (4) the existence of golden rings with the inscription "Saints Cyril and Methodius, January, 1846" (we know that Kostomarov, Hulak, and Bilozersky possessed such rings). The eventual arrests and trials of the brethren further add support to the existence of such a group (the tsarist police not having yet reached the sophistication of its Soviet counterpart, which sometimes invented fictitious secret organizations).

    The final conclusion must therefore be that the Brotherhood did indeed exist as a secret society, and that we may not know about all its activities (some estimate that its membership reached one hundred, which is doubtful). The looseness of the organization does not contradict this conclusion. It was loose precisely because, ideologically, it was pluralistic and free-wheeling. It could accommodate pragmarists like Hulak and sentimentalists like Bilozersky, rationalists like Kulish and fiery poets like Shevchenko, creative intellectuals like Kostomarov and mere followers like Navrotsky. The idea that united them all was the idea of the liberation of their country (within a Slavic federation), which was powerful enough to overcome all differences. The idea of liberation was not as vague as it may sound—it was formulated as a program. As a parting, dissenting note, one may quote again the distant mentor of [41] the Brotherhood, Kulish, who, writing on December 29, 1846, to Plet-nev, reported these impressions on his return to Kiev during that month:

    Among the local young men who had finished university studies I found great intellectual agitation and readiness to start the most ephemeral undertakings. They thought that I would not only take part in these enterprises but would become the head of their literary corporation. With this in view they gathered at one of my friend's where I had promised to come for dinner. I found myself surrounded by pensive faces, lowered foreheads and knitted eyebrows. Inwardly I laughed and was vexed. The coolness of my opinions surprised them and they came to regard me as an egoist from the capital. However, Kostomarov and Shevchenko are as closely attached to me as they were before. I found a great change in Shevchenko. He had become more erudite and solid. His travels in Little Russia enriched his mind with many important impressions. Among other things, he regards the landlords as they should be regarded.35

    It seems that the old controversies with Kostomarov remained unresolved. In any case, Kulish decided to stay out of this particular joint effort of the brethren. This did not save him from eventual arrest, however, for through his constant contact with the others he was guilty of more than complicity. Despite this and various other divergencies, the group held together. [42]

    Notes to Chapter III

    1. A. Walicki, A History of Russian Thought (Stanford, 1979), p. 1.

    2. J. G. Herder, "Journal meiner Reise im Jahr 1769," Herders Saemtliche Werke, Vol. IV, B. Suphan, ed. (Berlin, 1878), p. 402.

    3. O. Pelech, "Toward a Historical Sociology of the Ukrainian Ideologues in the Russian Empire of the 1830s and 1840s," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Princeton, 1976), p. 4. Chapter three of this dissertation is devoted to Uvarov's policies.

    4. See G. Luckyj, Between Gogol' and Sevcenko (Munich, 1971), pp. 27-37.

    5. For the Polish connections of the Brotherhood, see Jozef Gotabek, Bractwo Sw. Cyryla i Metodego w Kijowie (Warsaw, 1936), pp. 45-49, 316-85.

    6. M. Handelsman, Ukrainska polityka ks. Adama Czartoryskiego przed wojna krymska (Warsaw, 1936), p. 5.

    7. In 1847, writing in exile in the fortress of Orsk, Shevchenko composed a poem "To the Poles" (Poliakam) in which he implored both traditional foes to "shake hands" and to "renew our quiet paradise in the name of Christ" (surely an echo of the Cyrilo-Methodian program). In 1848, on the occasion of the formation of the Polish legion in Italy, Mickiewicz issued "Composition of Principles" (Skiad zasad) in which he pledged the brotherly love of Poland to the "peoples of Rus" (ludom ruskim): A. Mickiewicz, Dzieia, Vol. XII (Warsaw, 1955), p. 8. In 1855, M. Czajkowski (Sadyk Pasza), organizer of the anti-Russian forces in Turkey, was visited by Mickiewicz in Burgas. In a recorded conversation with Lenoir on June 2, 1855, shortly before his death, Mickiewicz said: "Poland will find herself if the uprising succeeds in Rus, since they say strange things about the popular movement in Ukraine; they say it is directed in expectation of a helping hand from an ally. If we could only unite with these elements through Bessarabia and Odessa, then Europe would see very clearly that there is a possibility and a force living within Russia herself which could defeat her": "Rozmowy z Adamem Mickiewiczem," A. Mickiewicz, Dzieia wszystkie, Vol. XVI (Warsaw, 1933), p. 444.

    8. Otechestvennye zapiski, 1-2 (1840).

    9. Istorichesky vestnik, 4-6 (1890).

    10. P. Kulish, "Vospominaniia o Nikolae Ivanoviche Kostomarove," Nov, 13 (1885): 62.

    11. H. Serhienko, T. H. Shevchenko i kyrylo-mefodievske tovarystvo (Kiev, 1983), p. 33.

    12. P. Kulish, "Istorychne opovidannie," Khutorna poeziia (Lviv, 1882), p. 11.

    13. Ibid., pp. 7-10.

    14. Ibid., p. 11.

    15. Viktor Petrov, Panteleytnon Kulish v piadesiati roky (Kiev, 1929), p. 404.

    16. Ibid.

    17. Osnova, Vol. IV (1861), p. 49.

    18. P. Zaionchkovsky, Kirillo-Mefodievskoe obshchestvo (Moscow, 1959), p. 63.

    19. V. Miiakovsky, "Knyha pro kyrylo-metodiivske bratstvo," Suchasnist, 3 (1963): 88.

    20. N. Kostomarov, Avtobiografiia (Moscow, 1922), p. 187.

    21. Ibid., pp. 187-89.

    22. Serhienko, T. H. Shevchenko i kyrylo-mefodievske tovarystvo, pp. 53-54.

    23. Viktor Petrov, "Roman Kostomarova," Zhyttia i revoliutsiia, 2 (1929): 65. Petrov's excellent, though novelistic, portrayal of Kostomarov is based on documentary sources.

    24. V. Miiakovsky, "Liudy sorokovykh rokiv; Kyrylo-metodiivtsi v yikh lystuvanni," Za sto lit, 2 (1928): 53.

    25. Ibid., pp. 53-54.

    26. Ibid., p. 55.

    27. Ibid., p. 58.

    28." Bielina-Kedrzycki's memoirs were published in 1918 in Gazeta Iwowska. Here they are quoted from Biohrafiia T. H. Shevchenka za spohadamy suchasnykiv (Kiev, 1958), pp. 107-108.

    29. Ibid., pp. 106-107.

    30. Miiakovsky, "Liudy sorokovykh rokiv," p. 67.

    31. For the full text, see Appendix 6.

    32. Cf. M. Hrushevsky, "Z ideolohii kyrylo-metodiivtsiv; Zapyska V. Bilozerskoho," Ukraina, 1 (1914).

    33. See D. Chyzhevsky, Narysyz istoriifilosofii na Ukraini (Prague, 1931), p. 110. The chapters on Cyrilo-Methodians, Kostomarov, and Kulish belong to the most perceptive studies ever written.

    34. O. Pelech, "Toward a Historical Sociology of the Ukrainian Ideologues in the Russian Empire of the 1830s and 1840s," pp. 207, 212. This work contains some good insights and documentary evidence on the Russian establishment, but it also has serious weaknesses. Its main thrust—that the Brotherhood was an "ephemeral" circle—is false.

    35. Viktor Petrov, "Rizdvo r. 1846," Shevchenko; richnykpershy (Kharkiv, 1928), p. 148.


    The Program

    Six documents, printed in the appendices to this book, comprise the program of the Brotherhood: (1) the by-laws (ustav); (2) the rules (glavnye pravila); (3) Zakon bozhy (God's Law); also known as Knyhy bytiia ukrainskoho narodu (The Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People); (4) the appeal to brother Ukrainians; (5) a similar appeal to the Russians and the Poles; and (6) Vasyl Bilozersky's note.

    The By-laws

    The by-laws of the Brotherhood, which include some points made in Bilozersky's note (Appendix 6), consist of six points, setting out the premises on which the society was based. Point one proclaims that the goal of all the Slavs should be their "spiritual and political union." There follows a clarification that at the time of their union each Slavic tribe should have its independence (samostoiatelnost). The list of the Slavs eligible for such a union includes Ukrainians (Yuzhno-russy), Russians (Severo-russy), Belorussians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Lusatians, Serbians (Iliro-serby), Slovenes (Khorutany),1 and Bulgarians. Point three assures that each tribe should be ruled by the people (pravlenie narodnoe) and should observe equality among all, as well as the Christian faith. The government of the Slavic union, its legislation, and the right to private property and education should be based on the religion of Jesus Christ (Bilozersky's note is most emphatic here). Point five elaborates that under such equality good education and pure morals should be a condition for participation in government. Finally, a general Slavic council (sobor), representing all the tribes, should be established. Apart from their Christian ideology, the by-laws provide the bare bones of the governmental structure of the Slavic Union. Kostomarov, in the first [46] version of his autobiography, dictated to N. Bilozerska, expounded further on this structure. He recommended that Russian be used, at first, as the common language of the Union, since it is "the most widely spoken," that serfdom and capital punishment be abolished, and that corporal punishment be reduced. He proposed a different distribution of the Slavic states with "two Little Russian ones," part of Galicia (Austria) being attached to one of them. Kiev should be an ex-territorial capital where the assembly (sejm) would gather. The general assembly should consist of two houses, one with elected deputies. Each state should have its own sejm, which would be convened every year. It should also have a president, chosen for four years, and foreign and interior ministers. The Union would have a small army, and each state a militia. Because of the unequal numbers among the different nationalities, some tribes would in fact be less equal than others.2 Some scholars, such as Zaionchkovsky and Papazian, pointed to similarities between Kostomarov's outline and the Decembrist Nikita Muravev's constitution, but it should also be stated that there is a resemblance to the constitution of the United States. There are also similarities with the federal structures advanced by the Polish Society of United Brethren, especially with the Brotherhood of St. Stanislas.3

    The Rules

    The second document, "The Chief Rules of the Society," consisted of eleven points. The goal of the society was to disseminate its ideas among young people. Each member on admission must swear an oath, and if he were to be apprehended he should not betray his brethren. This rule was evidently not enforced. Point three specified that the society had a duty to help the families of those of its members apprehended by the enemy. Each member could induct new members without revealing to them the names of other members. All members should be Slavs, and complete equality would prevail among them. Each member could keep his faith, but the society would try to reconcile their differences. Point eight asked for the abolition of serfdom and the introduction of universal literacy. Because the Brotherhood was a Christian society, it rejected the atheistic belief in the end justifying the means. Several members of the society might hold separate meetings as long as these did not contradict the rules and ideas of the society as a whole. Finally, each member was reminded that the society was secret.

    It is clear that the society was non-violent and that it aimed at education and indoctrination. Its flexible internal organization was also its weakness. From further investigation it is certain that both the bylaws and the rules were the work of three men: Kostomarov, Hulak, and Bilozersky. The contribution of each is clearly discernible. [47]

    The Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People

    The central document of the Brotherhood is Zakon bozhy or Knyhy bytiia ukrainskoho narodu. It is much longer than the by-laws and the rules, and it has great richness and density. Four copies of Zakon bozhy have been preserved. The first two copies, one in Ukrainian and the other in Russian translation, are Kostomarov's, the third copy, in Russian, is Hulak's, and the fourth, in Ukrainian, is by Navrotsky (for the use of Kulish and Bilozersky). Naturally there are some discrepancies among them, but these are minor. According to Professor Papazian, who had access to the archives, yet another copy, written by a police scribe, was made for the tsar to read.4 Kostomarov's copies are usually regarded as the most authoritative.

    The document is written in biblical style, with 104, or sometimes 109, main points or verses. It is a condensed history of the world, with a strong emphasis on the Slavic countries. We are first told that God, the creator of the world, has ordained the division of people into tribes, each with its own territory. The purpose was to enable them to worship God even better. However, people forgot their God, invented their own little gods, and started to wage wars. The result was human unhap-piness, poverty, and discord. All these are regarded as the Lord's just punishment, the worst being slavery. Yet God is not mocked, so that while kings and rulers sold themselves to the devil, the true God remained unshaken. He chose the Hebrews and sent Moses to them, who established order based on law. But the Hebrews elected a king who became an autocrat and, like the devil himself, vied with God. The lord chastized the Hebrews, who lost their kingdom. Next came the Greeks, who wanted no king, but wished to be free and equal. For a while they flourished. But the Greeks invented their own gods, had slaves, and so offended God, who punished them. After them came the mighty Romans, who, too, offended God by having an Emperor. They triumphed briefly until God took pity on the human race and sent his own Son to redeem them. Christ's message was that all men were brethren and that they should love God and one another. He preached this to the people, and the Roman authorities became afraid. They apprehended Jesus and sentenced him to death. However, Christ rose from the dead, and his disciples, the poor fishermen, spread the gospel to all the corners of the world. Thus, the Christians multiplied, despite terrible persecution by the Romans. The Roman emperors tried to resort to craft and accepted Christianity without relinquishing their powers. They believed that it was possible to be both a Christian and a master. But all power was from God, and the worldly masters did not know this. They desecrated Christian freedom. Blessing was given to various peoples, among them the Slavs. The Greeks, the French, the Italians, the Spaniards, and the Germans attained some power, but eventually lost it because of their idolatrous ways. Some philosophers [48] began to preach egoism or self-interest. The French rebelled against their king, but did not achieve freedom. They slaughtered their king and each other and fell into worse bondage. The Roman and the German tribes had no freedom, either. The Slavic tribes alone had neither kings nor masters. The Lord sent two brothers, Constantine and Methodius, to enlighten the Slavs. And the Slavs quickly accepted the Christian faith, as no other people had accepted it. But they were plagued by discord and accepted rulers from among the Germans. And so the Slavs had masters and masters had slaves. The Lord punished the Slavs and they fell captive to the Germans, the Turks, and the Tatars. Yet their fate was not sealed, because the Lord planned that the scripture should be fulfilled in the Slavic tribe: the stone that the builders rejected would become the cornerstone.

    Then the narrative moves closer to Ukrainian history. At first there were three Slavic kingdoms: Poland, Lithuania, and Muscovy. In Poland the common people became slaves, and in Muscovy people were held in captivity. The Great Russians called their tsar an earthly god. Most Ukrainians lived in Poland and Lithuania. Then Ukraine united with Poland, but it loved neither tsar nor king. Ukraine created a Cossack Host, which was a brotherhood with elected officials. The officials served according to the word of Christ and preserved their purity of morals. Cossack Hermans liberated slaves and prisoners of the Turks. The Cossack Host grew until all the people in Ukraine were embraced by it, all free and equal. Ukraine followed the law of God and resisted the Polish Jesuits through the formation of church brotherhoods. The masters of Ukraine wished to suppress the Cossack movement and tortured innocent people. But the Cossacks rose and destroyed their foreign masters. Ukraine became free, but not for long. Then Ukraine joined Muscovy, but it soon saw that it had fallen into captivity. And Ukraine tried to secede from Muscovy. It wanted to be a free republic in union with Poland and Russia. Yet neither Poland nor Muscovy understood this, and they divided Ukraine between them. Ukraine fought against this, but it lost strength and was defeated. The Russian rulers, in particular Peter I and Catherine II, who was a "universal whore," oppressed Ukraine terribly. But Ukraine, although defeated, was not destroyed. Forsaken by its leaders, who went to serve Russia, it was reborn and was mindful of the one God. Ukraine lay in the grave but did not die. It was her voice that called all the Slavs to brotherhood. Poland awoke, and in Russia there was a rebellion against the tsar. Now a despot rules over three Slavic peoples, but Ukraine's voice has not been stilled. Ukraine will rise from the grave and will usher in the rule of law among the Slavs. Ukraine herself will be an independent republic in the Slavic Union. "Then all the peoples, pointing to that place on the map where Ukraine will be delineated, will say: behold, the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone." [49]

    Thus ends the first Ukrainian political manifesto. It is not only, as the Soviet critics say, couched in Christian terms, it is indeed a chili-astic vision. Human history is perceived in terms of man sinning against the true God, of being punished for it, and finally of being promised a redemption, in the Slavic world, by Ukraine's resurrection. Yet throughout this clearly messianic proposition are strewn coloured historical interpretations of Ukraine's past. The idealization of Ukraine's past in Zakon bozhy is reminiscent of the idealization in the "Istoriia Rusov." The blame for Ukraine's misfortunes is put squarely on Russia and Poland. Ukraine's Cossack history is glorified as a universal struggle against idolatrous foreign masters, its own people being without blemish. It is futile to pursue a detailed analysis of the historical content of the document, since it is not its historicity that is at issue.5 What Mykhailo Hrushevsky pointed out sixty years ago is still true today: that Zakon bozhy reveals, above all, Kostomarov's hatred of autocracy.6 With equal vehemence the document condemns serfhood. Salvation, for the brethren, could come only through a radical social change, brought about non-violently and through the creation of a Slavic federation, with Ukraine as an independent republic. Ukrainians, to whom no one paid particular attention, would provide the cornerstone of the future Christian utopia.

    Kostomarov's millenarian views were not original. Count Orlov, chief of the Third Section investigating the Brotherhood, at first expressed the opinion that Zakon bozhy was nothing but a reworking of Mickiewicz's Books of the Polish People and Polish Pilgrimage. Many scholars have confirmed this view, and one recent comparison was made between Ukrainian and Polish sources.7 Mickiewicz published his book in Paris in 1832, just after the unsuccessful Polish uprising. It was also written in biblical prose and was aimed at uplifting his countrymen and assuring them of ultimate victory. According to Walicki, Mickiewicz espoused "a collective messianism," a "metaphysical means to a distinctively political aim."

    A revolutionary hatred of tottering thrones was curiously combined in the Books with the mysticism of Saint Martin and with an openly conservative, backward-looking criticism of contemporary European civilization; retrospective, "reactionary" ideals (a conservative-romantic idealization of the Middle Ages and an apologia for the Polish "gentry-democracy") rubbed shoulders with revolutionary prophecy, with a catastrophic vision of history, and with chiliastic expectations of the total and imminent regeneration of mankind.8

    It is certain that Kostomarov read Mickiewicz's book, and there are obvious similarities between the two works. Both authors provide a theory of the genesis of mankind against a background of world history. Both blame sinful men for abandoning the true God. Punishment for this, in both cases, is slavery. Then comes the historical Christ, who [50] redeems mankind through his sacrifice. Mickiewicz does not mention certain historical facts that are prominent in Kostomarov's work (e.g., the French Revolution), but both authors end their works with a messianic role for Poland and Ukraine, except that Poland will, in future, lead all the countries of Europe, and Ukraine only the Slavic ones. Both authors entrust the common people with a liberating role in history, and both condemn autocracy (although Mickiewicz does have a good word to say about the Polish kings). Yet another source of Kostomarov's work, pointed out by a French scholar,9 was the French philosopher Lamennais (1782-1854). He published a pamphlet in 1834, Paroles d'un croyant, in which he preached Christian socialism. There are virtually no socialist ideas in Kostomarov's work, but in advocating the brotherhood of man he came close to Lamennais. There are also some stylistic similarities.

    Despite, or perhaps because of, the messianic, millenarian character of Kostomarov's work, his ideas were the stuff of political ideology, which often feeds on mythic and chiliastic visions of the future rather than on rational analysis of a given society. In an incisive article on Ukrainian intellectual history,10 Oleksander Pynkhvych criticized almost all the Ukrainian ideologists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries for their inability to grasp the economic and social realities of Ukrainian society and their indulgence instead in traditional populism and utopianism. Basing his analysis on Chyzhevsky's analysis of the Cyrilo-Methodian Brotherhood, Pynkhvych concluded that

    the ideology of the Cyrilo-Methodian Brotherhood may be considered, as far as its metaphysical and religious premises are concerned, as a continuation of the philosophy of the traditional society with some slight modifications of the socio-political structure, borrowed from the West, which under the conditions of the socio-economic realities of Russia, were closer to a Utopia than a program of political action.11
    Its salient features, universality and the idea of community, were later absorbed by the ideology of populism. This universality was only slightly modified by the Ukrainian messianism of the brethren. These ideas, according to Pynkhvych, did not "testify to the birth of a modern Ukrainian nation, for which the objective conditions did not yet exist."12 True as this may be within the context of the history of the modernization of Europe in the nineteenth century, the importance of Utopias in modern history may be underestimated. In the sphere of philosophy, the impact of Utopians like Nietzsche and Marx is clearly visible in our own day. In Ukrainian history, it is the message of another great Utopian, the "brother" Taras Shevchenko, that contributed more to the creation of nationhood than any economic and social developments in themselves. Ideas, no matter how Utopian, appeal to the irrational nature of man and will always outpace the socio-economic realities. They, more than anything else, are the nourishment for the [51] national psyche, not necessarily immediately, but in decades and centuries to come. In the case of Zakon bozhy, its universalist yet nationalist, Christian yet political thrust is of unique importance in Ukrainian history because of the blend of these ideas and the vigour of their expression.

    Appeal to Brother Ukrainians

    The appeal to brother Ukrainians reiterates very concisely the idea of a Slavic federation, where, united, the following Slavic peoples would live in freedom and independence: the Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Serbians, and Bulgarians. Each would have their own culture (language and literature) and would be governed by one federal assembly (sejm or rada). Each republic would have an elected leader, and all would have one federal leader. Freedom and equality in each republic would be guaranteed, and social classes would be abolished. Officials would be elected according to their wisdom and education, not according to their birth or wealth. The final point stipulates that the Christian faith was to be the basis of the laws in each republic and in the federation. The appeal is directed to Ukrainians on both sides of the Dnieper, making it the first call to sobornist (unity) of the whole of Ukraine to be made in modern times.

    The document is brief and effective primarily because it omits the philosophical and historical underpinning. It is written in Ukrainian and, unlike the Zakon bozhy, was meant to be disseminated among the people (Zakon bozhy could have appealed only to the intellectuals). It does not call for a revolution, but at the same time it envisages a system radically different from the present one. It is not, therefore, a call to action, but, as the last paragraph points out: "let everyone ponder on how it should be achieved .... there are as many wisdoms as there are heads"—not a bad even if uncommon beginning for a political campaign.

    Appeal to Brother Russians and Poles

    The appeal to the Russians and the Poles is one long, emotionally charged paragraph. Their poor sister, Ukraine, whom they have torn and destroyed, does not bear a grudge and is sympathetic to their problems to the extent that it is ready to shed blood to obtain their freedom. It calls on them to rise from their sleep, to annihilate mutual hatred, incited by the tsars and lords, to get rid of their yoke and all feelings of inferiority, to liberate themselves from foreign German and Tatar influences and oppression, and to return to the brotherly love of the Slavs. This accomplished, they will be rewarded with Slavic union and the love of Jesus Christ. [52]

    In effect, Ukraine is calling on her neighbours, mindful of past hatreds but with hope for a future alliance and for good will in the common struggle for freedom. Of the brethren, it was Shevchenko who, in his poems, advocated the reconciliation of the Ukrainians with the Poles (the ending of "Haidamaky"). Kulish, too, was a Polonophile as well as a Russophile. Lastly, Kostomarov himself was also well disposed towards Ukraine's Slavic neighbours. In political terms, the appeal echoes some Polish proclamations—"Za nasza i wasza wolnosc" (for our freedom and yours)—and is an astute, logical statement of a federal position. Echoes of this, especially with regard to their Polish brothers, could be heard in the appeals of Soviet Ukrainian dissidents in the 1970s and 1980s.

    The appeal offers further proof that the earliest Ukrainian political theorists were not narrow nationalists. For one thing, despite their mil-lenarian tendency, the Cyrilo-Methodians paid a great deal of attention to social problems. The generality of the dictum "neither master nor slave" in their central document was supplemented by many pronouncements on serfdom and the need for education of the peasants. Hrushevsky aptly described these efforts:

    Thoughts about the improvement of the peasants' lot may be found in all the plans of the society—from naive intentions to petition to the tsar or his ministers by describing to them abuses by local authorities, to the similarly simplistic project of state and social reform (Andruzsky's note, while naive and chaotic, is all the same interesting as an indicator of contemporary ideas—we hope to publish it later)13 and the more concrete and rational plans: the organization of a publishing company for the enlightenment of the peasants through books in the Ukrainian language (for which money was collected and a separate account was established), to the composition of a series of popular booklets and guides "about sacred and social history, geography, accounting and economics,"—the publication of a newspaper for the peasants (with the help of government), and propaganda for the establishment of village schools by the landowners, etc.14

    This desire to create an incomplete Ukrainian social infrastructure, based on the peasantry, the intelligentsia, and some enlightened landowners alone, is a sign that this small circle of intellectuals was determined to start a process of modern nation-building. Analysing the growth of national movements, Roman Szporluk argues that these small circles of intellectuals—"students of language, history, folklore— performed the crucial operation of defining a national category and thus took the first step toward transforming that category into a nation."15 This might be called the "academic" stage of a national movement, to be followed by "cultural" and "political" stages. Szporluk wisely adds that this "struggle for [national] identity takes place not only among nations but also within the national community. It rarely is completed in the early stages of the national awakening: more often it lasts until [53] a nation attains independence, and sometimes it continues after that stage has been reached."16 In the Ukrainian case a beginning was made by the Cyrilo-Methodians. Unlike the Poles, who had not only a much stronger tradition of nationhood, but also wide, international support for their cause, the Ukrainians started from a position of weakness. But their ultimate goal was similar to that of the Poles: a free republic in a Slavic commonwealth of nations.

    Bilozersky's Note

    Finally, Bilozersky's note, published by Hrushevsky in 1914 and reproduced here as Appendix 6, so long forgotten by Soviet scholars because of its Christian ideology, provides a synthesis of religion and nationalism, the two pillars of the Brotherhood. To Bilozersky, both "our dear Ukraine" and "Christian love and freedom" were equally important; his pride in his native land was suffused by Christian morality. The eleven points of his "program" for the society echo the ideas of the Zakon bozhy, but they reflect the personal views of a devout Christian. Like the Polish messianists, these Ukrainian Utopians were convinced of a reward from God for Ukraine's sufferings—surely a significant portent of future developments. Like the Polish church later, the Ukrainian church in the next century became excessively nationalistic. [54]

    Notes to Chapter IV

    1. The word Khorutany has traditionally been translated as Croatians. However, Khorutania (Carantania) is the old Slavic name for Carinthia, the home of the Slovenes. Hence, in this book the word Khorutany appears in English as Slovenes.

    2. N. Kostomarov, Avtobiografik (Moscow, 1890), p. 62.

    3. M. Vozniak, Kyrylo-metodiivske bratstvo (Lviv, 1921), p. 35.

    4. Dennis Papazian, "Nicholas Ivanovich Kostomarov; Russian Historian, Ukrainian Nationalist, Slavic Federalist," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (University of Michigan, 1966).

    5. This is, nevertheless, done with great acumen by G. Luciani, Le lime de la genese du peuple ukrainien (Paris, 1956).

    6. M. Hrushevsky, "Kostomarov i novitnia Ukraina," Ukraina, 3 (1925).

    7. S. Kozak, "Knyhy bytiia ukrainskoho narodu Mykoly Kostoma-rowa i Ksiegi narodu i pielgrzymstwa polskiego Adama Mickiewicza," Slavia Orientalis, II (1973).

    8. A. Walicki, A History of Russian Thought (Stanford, 1979), p. 248. Walicki is aware of the influence of the Books on the Cyrilo-Methodians. He writes that in The Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People, "the Ukrainians—they alone!—preserved the ancient Slavonic spirit of freedom and equality, consonant to true Christianity and incompatible with both nobility and autocracy. Therefore a great historical mission fell to their lot: they were to awaken to ancient democratic spirit both in Poland and in Russia, to put an end to Polish-Russian strife, and to unite all Slavonic peoples in a free republic, knowing neither tsar nor landlords" (pp. 252-53). It is noteworthy that the Polish scholar has picked up Kostomarov's conciliatory tone towards Poland and Russia.

    9. Luciani, Le lime de la du peuple ukrainien.

    10. Oleksander Pynkhvych, "Moderna natsiia i khutorianstvo," Suchasnist, 11 (1965).

    11. Ibid., p. 80.

    12. Ibid.

    13. It never was published in its entirety.

    14. M. Hrushevsky, ed., "Materialy do istorii Kyrylo-Metodiivskoho bratstva," Zbirnyk pamiaty Tarasa Shevchenka (Kiev, 1915), p. 104.

    15. R. Szporluk, "War by Other Means," Slavic Review, Spring (1985): 23.

    16. Ibid., p. 24.


    The Trial

    Petrov's Denunciation

    Late in February 1847, Oleksiy Petrov, a student at the University of Kiev, went to see Mykhailo Yuzefovych, the Ukrainophile school trustee, and, in what was, and still is, a common Russian practice, delivered td him a denunciation (donos) about the meetings he overheard in the student apartment next to his. On March 3, Yuzefovych took Petrov to see the superintendent of the Kiev educational district, General Traskin, before whom Petrov put his denunciation in writing. He related how he could overhear conversations taking place at the neighbouring apartment of Mykola Hulak, which was located at the home of a priest at St. Andrew's church, Zavadsky—conversations between Hulak, Kostomarov, Savych, and Navrotsky about a republican form of government for Russia. In these discussions, Petrov reported, Savych attacked the monarchy and advocated in its place the creation of a Slavic federation, if necessary by violent means.

    Following this denunciation before General Traskin, Petrov became acquainted with Hulak and his friends and pretended that he, Petrov, was also a republican sympathizer. This apparently fooled Hulak, who disclosed to Petrov the existence of the Brotherhood, showed him the ring inscribed with the names of Saints Cyril and Methodius, and read him the by-laws of the society, which Petrov then copied. Hulak, allegedly, boasted that the society was widespread, that its centre was in Moscow, and that its aim was to disseminate libertarian and federalist ideas. On another occasion, Petrov met Savych at Hu-lak's apartment and heard from him the notion that the views of the secret society should be spread in the military schools. Later, again in [58] Hulak's apartment, Hulak read Petrov Zakon bozhy, which was to be disseminated among the people. Its main thrust was to demonstrate that all misfortunes originated from the present form of government. Petrov was also shown the appeal of the Brotherhood to Ukrainians, calling on them to throw off their yoke. Then Navrotsky read to Petrov some uncensored poems by Shevchenko, which were clearly anti-government in content. Because Hulak was leaving the next morning for St. Petersburg, Petrov had no opportunity to copy the Zakon bozhy. Later Petrov received a manuscript of Shevchenko's poem about the Haidamak era, a poem he considered provocative.

    The Arrests

    The denunciation by Petrov, which somewhat exaggerated the revolutionary aspect of the conspiracy, was duly received and acted upon. Orders were issued by the Third Section (secret police), upon the receipt of the report by Governor-General Bibikov, to apprehend the men named by Petrov. The police operation was carried out secretly. Hulak was arrested in St. Petersburg on March 18, 1847. Two copies of the "criminal document, Zakon bozhy," were found in his possession. One was in Hulak's own handwriting. During the search Hulak tried to hide the document in a toilet, but the arresting officer rescued a wet copy and was rewarded for his zeal. During the search of Hulak's apartment, further evidence, correspondence, and names were collected by the police. This prompted the police to issue arrest warrants for the following men: Kostomarov, Shevchenko, Posiada, Markovych, Tulub, Andruzsky, Bilozersky, Navrotsky, Kulish, Sa-vych, Ashanin, Bushen, Chyzhov, and Pylchykiv. The last four were released after preliminary questioning. Savych was abroad. Kulish and Bilozersky, on their way abroad, were arrested in Warsaw. Kostomarov was arrested in Kiev, on the eve of his wedding, March 30. Shevchenko, who was travelling to Kostomarov's wedding to be the best man, was apprehended while crossing the Dnieper on a ferry near Kiev on April 5. A handwritten collection of his poems "The Three Years" was found on him. All those arrested were sent to St. Petersburg. The Third Section kept a diary of events of what became known as the "Ukrainian-Slavic society" (Ukraino-slavianskoe obshchestvo) from March 17 to June 14,1847. At times this diary was given to the tsar to read, and this fact attests to the importance given to this case by the authorities.

    The investigation was conducted personally by General Dubelt and the chief of the Third Section, Count Orlov. Dubelt was, in his youth, a member of the Kiev Masonic lodge and was regarded as a liberal. During the Decembrist revolt he avoided arrest, and he later became an ardent supporter of the regime. His wife implored him not to take the post in the Third Section. Herzen described him as the most [59] intelligent man in the secret police. The Cyrilo-Methodians did not like his boorish behaviour.1 Count Orlov had no liberal views and distinguished himself in defence of the tsar on the Senate Square in December 1825. He had the reputation of being a sly careerist. Outwardly a gentleman, he could be very ruthless and cruel.2

    The Testimony


    Hulak was regarded by the police as the chief organizer of the Brotherhood. During the interrogation he conducted himself with dignity and refused to name his associates or to discuss the activities of the Brotherhood. The police then tried to exert pressure through Hu-lak's father, but that was unsuccessful. As a last resort the gendarmes planted a priest, Father Malov, in Hulak's cell to break down his resistance. Malov tried to frighten the accused, but Hulak told him that he was sworn to secrecy. When Hulak asked the priest to offer him the eucharist, the latter refused, saying Hulak must make his confession first. But even this did not change Hulak's mind.3 In repeated interrogation by the police, the most common answer given by Hulak was "I don't know." He was even, at one point, subjected to the indignity, in those days, of being stripped, so that the police could check on the rumour that there were tattoo marks of a Cossack mace (bulava) on his body.4 Only on May 17, after learning about Kostomarov's testimony, did Hulak admit his membership in the Brotherhood. He was unbroken, and he was severely punished for his firmness by being incarcerated in the fortress of Peter and Paul as "an incorrigible political criminal."5


    A very different story unfolded in the case of Kostomarov.6 Suffering from profound shock at being arrested just before his wedding day, Kostomarov literally broke down. He cried, begged forgiveness, and cringed before the gendarmes. During the interrogation he repeatedly changed his story, which helped to confuse the police but also implicated his friends. Much of Kostomarov's testimony was the invention of a desperate and broken man. At first, still in March, he refused to admit his membership in or knowledge of the Brotherhood. He also invented a story about translating a Polish work into Ukrainian, a work similar to Mickiewicz's Books of the Polish People and Polish Pilgrimage. He admitted that he gave it to Hulak to read.7 At the interrogation on April 15, Kostomarov still denied any knowledge of the [60[ Brotherhood, but he confessed to holding talks with friends about Slavic union, which he thought a legitimate Panslavic topic. Kostomarov described Hulak's behaviour in Kiev as "childish." He considered Hu-lak's idea of a brotherhood to be a fantasy. The real purpose of these discussions, according to Kostomarov, was the planning of some publishing and literary activities. Kostomarov also declared himself to be a Russian and his friends Ukrainian. He described Shevchenko as a "fiery Little Russian of coarse character."8 Pressed about his views on Slavic union, he admitted that he had entertained such an idea, but all Slavs, he argued, should be united with Russia under the tsar. The writing of Zakon bozhy he still explained as the translation of a work called Podniestrianka. He had heard that the original was the work of Yakiv de Balmen. This, surely, was an attempt by Kostomarov to ascribe Zakon bozhy to someone who was already dead (Shevchenko's friend de Balmen died in 1845). The rings with the inscription of Saints Cyril and Methodius were not a serious conspiratorial act, and there was nothing political in the activities of his friends. Kostomarov declared himself a confirmed monarchist and a believing Christian and considered the enthusiasm with which his friends dedicated themselves to Ukraine with great scepticism.

    On April 17 Kostomarov was interrogated once more. The questions became more pressing, and Kostomarov's answers became longer and more evasive. The claims he had made for Kiev as the capital of a future Slavic union were, in Kostomarov's words, taken from his short story "Panych Natalych" and were a parody of Slavophilism. In fact, it has been argued successfully by some scholars9 that Kostomarov's short story did not ridicule, but, on the contrary, glorified the idea of Slavic unity. This also proves that during the interrogation Kostomarov was not always sincere. Asked why he agreed with some of Kulish's ideas, expressed in their correspondence, Kostomarov said that this was a hollow compliment on his part. Basically, his ideas were different from those of Kulish, with whom, in his lectures, he conducted a fierce argument. He described Kulish as a fanatical Ukrainian and tried to distance himself from him. Further, Kostomarov contradicted Posia-da's testimony about the Brotherhood and called him a liar. He also fiercely attacked Hulak and Bilozersky for their "childishness" and "fantasies" in talking about the Brotherhood. Its existence he regarded as "delirium" (bred).10 He ridiculed Savych, who, he claimed, was a follower of the French communists and considered that everything, including wives, should be held in common. Shevchenko's poems ("The Dream" and others) he liked for their language, but he strongly objected to their content. He also maintained that he was only interested in creating at the University of Kiev a study group devoted to Slavic subjects, which might be called after Saints Cyril and Methodius.

    On May 7, Kostomarov wrote down new testimony, changing the earlier one, which was false "because of [his] mental disorder."11 We [61] know that on May 1 he complained of a nervous attack and that the authorities were disturbed about his "insanity." The May 7 deposition went over familiar ground as to when and how the Brotherhood was formed and what purpose the rings served. Kostomarov said that his circle of friends was not a society, but a study group. He denied the existence of the by-laws, explaining them as BUozersky's copy of some document. He expounded at length on the purity of the Slavs and the Orthodox faith, both of which his circle tried to cultivate. The future of all Slavs, he argued, lay in their union with Russia. Kostomarov claimed that he knew Shevchenko and Savych only slightly. He was in possession of Zakon bozhy and other documents because they interested him as a historian. When asked if he had anything to add, he said that he was innocent, praised the Emperor, but conceded that he might have erred unwittingly. "God himself showed me how carelessly I behaved."12

    On May 15 there was a confrontation (ochnaia stavka) between Kostomarov, Bilozersky, Posiada, Andruzsky, and Petrov. Bilozersky testified that Kostomarov and Hulak organized a circle that was called a "Slavic society." This was hotly denied by Kostomarov, even though Bilozersky admitted that Kostomarov did not want the circle to be called a "society." A similar claim by Posiada was also denied by Kostomarov. Then Andruzsky disclosed that Kostomarov was a liberal and disapproved of the monarchy. This, too, was rejected by Kostomarov. Finally, Petrov accused Kostomarov of mentioning the possibility of an armed revolt like the French Revolution, which Kostomarov vehemently denied.

    The gendarmes kept a separate file on Kostomarov and, while the interrogation was in progress, conducted an investigation of Kosto-marov's past. Some of Kostomarov's activities in Kharkiv were reported on. Then, on May 19, there was a final deposition by Kostomarov, who was confronted by the false police statement that Hulak had confessed to writing Zakon bozhy. Kostomarov answered sensibly that Hulak was probably trying to help him. He also retracted his earlier accusation of communism against Savych. So ended the interrogation of Mykola Kostomarov.


    The testimony of Vasyl Bilozersky was marked by his profound repentance. First he tried to find excuses by attributing his actions to illness. His mind, he said, was childish when he was a member of the society, which, in any case, "existed only in [our] minds."13 Their discussions on the Slavs and their union were not at all seditious. Such a union would come about by itself (samo soboiu). True, the brethren were opposed to serfdom, but they wanted to abolish it gradually, mostly through enlightenment and education. He himself submitted a project [62] for village schools when he was in Poltava. The Slavists (slavianisty) did not work against the government, but were Christian idealists. They were few in numbers and without any influence. Kostomarov was a dedicated scholar, Hulak a student of law and Slavic customs, Shev-chenko an "orphan poet, who suffered a great deal in his life."14 Shev-chenko never agitated in Bilozersky's favour, but hoped that "people would not reject what is their own."15 Kulish, in Bilozersky's opinion, was a serious scholar and not, as the prosecution maintained, the leader of a Ukrainian party. There never was such a party. Markovych and Navrotsky were patriots, not conspirators.

    At times Bilozersky's own penitence and the desire not to implicate his friends bordered on the ridiculous. Asked why he had in his possession Shevchenko's poem "The Dream," he answered that he was interested in copying those Ukrainian words in it with which he was unfamiliar. As for the charge that he was Kulish's pupil and that, under the latter's mentorship, he was to spread the ideas of the Brotherhood in Poltava, Bilozersky categorically denied it. He repeated that the society had no political purpose and yet admitted his own "wrong thinking"16 and threw himself upon the mercy of his accusers.


    In diametrical opposition was the testimony of the young student, Andruzsky. Most impressionable because of his youth, he might also have decided to "tell all" in the hope that by incriminating others he would draw a lighter sentence himself. Yet although most scholars belittle his testimony, it offers some interesting insights into the Brotherhood. While the Brotherhood, according to Andruzsky, had no formal structure, its main goal was clear: the establishment of a Slavic union "taking as a model the United States [of America] or today's constitutional France."17 Its secondary purpose was to re-establish the Ukrainian Hetman state, if possible separately, if not, then within a Slavic union. Those advocating the main goal were Kostomarov and Hulak; those in favour of the secondary purpose were Shevchenko and Kulish. Markovych, Navrotsky, and Bilozersky were in favour of both objectives, but they were followers, not leaders. The society also had the goals of merging all the social estates (sosloviia) into one and of reconciling peoples who were antagonistic to each other. In an obviously rhetorical exclamation, Andruzsky claimed that "1825 should be repeated,"18 and that the brethren believed it better to stand on their own feet than always to lean on others. In practical terms, the Brotherhood was in favour of training village schoolteachers, converting the szlachta in Kiev and other western provinces to orthodoxy, and publishing a journal in Slavic languages. Funds were collected among the brethren for these purposes. [63]

    According to Andruzsky's testimony, Shevchenko's slanderous verses were nothing more than slanders. Andruzsky sketched a fairly accurate profile of Kostomarov from his Kharkiv days to the present. He described him as an enthusiast for Ukrainian history and language. On one occasion Kostomarov asked Posiada why Khmelnytsky had not slaughtered all the Poles. Shevchenko, whose "words thundered"19 across Ukraine, exercised a great influence on Kostomarov. Andruzsky himself liked the early poems of Shevchenko, not his later satires. Shevchenko castigated Khmelnytsky and elevated Mazepa,20 a position with which Andruzsky disagreed. Kulish, according to Andruzsky, was also a fanatical Ukrainian who recognized Shevchenko as Ukraine's greatest poet. Navrotsky was spirited but spineless, Hulak was a product of a German university (he talked in German even to his dog), and Posiada hated the monarchy and tried to better the peasants' lot. Andruzsky then disarmingly testified that he liked to write Ukrainian verse, but he "wrote one thing, and spoke and thought another."21 He even drafted a proposal to the tsar suggesting that the peasants' freedom could be purchased by making defence cuts,22 but was sorry for doing this. His interest in Ukrainian poetry suffered a setback when he could not write it in a distinct orthography.

    In the end, Andruzsky became a little confused and repentant and assured the gendarmes that there was no revolutionary spirit among the other students at the university. On June 8 Andruzsky wrote a letter to General Traskin in which he withdrew many of the allegations he had made to the police. He confessed that he had "told lies because of self-preservation and stupidity."23 He was sorry he had "blackened" his friends to the gendarmes, and he wanted to be forgiven. He named police inspector Trotsky as the one who had actually prompted him to give false testimony. He wrote this letter from Kazan, before the other brethren had been sentenced. There is, again, a great deal of dramatization in Andruzsky's letter, as indeed there is in his testimony. Yet the latter cannot be dismissed as mere fantasy. It was not merely an inspiration from the lurid mind of a police inspector. Some of the things Andruzsky said were true and were the logical consequences of the effect of clandestine activity on a youthful mind.


    Throughout his interrogation Kulish maintained his moral and intellectual gravity. His breaking point came after the trial. Asked to explain certain passages in his letter to Hulak, Kulish calmly pointed out their innocuousness, including the reference to the "whirlpool of Russian life"24 that he found in St. Petersburg. His friendship with Hulak he explained as being based on a common interest in Ukrainian history. [64]

    Kulish's letters to Kostomarov were also carefully examined by the police. Kulish explained that in his letters he expressed a high opinion of Ukrainian history, much higher than he now held. The reference to a "Ukrainian Moses" was to Bohdan Khmelnytsky, and "the oppressors of Ukraine" were Poles. "The trumpets that would bring down the walls [of Jericho]" was a reference to Ukrainian literature and its role in Ukraine. He repeated his rejection of Kostomarov's concept of Ukrainian "insignificance." He stoutly defended the role of poetry in national life and mentioned himself besides Kvitka and Shevchenko as leading Ukrainian writers. To a question about the negative influence he felt Russia had exerted in Ukrainian history, Kulish answered that during the Hetman era the tsar's representatives often manipulated events and people in Ukraine, to the people's detriment. His call to "activity" he explained as a call to literary activity. He was even forced to explain the phrase "the seed sending forth deep roots" and various other turns of speech that had a revolutionary ring. He confirmed his belief in the spread of education among the peasants and reiterated his dedication to the preservation of the Ukrainian folk and historical heritage. He disclosed that the brethren had planned to publish educational textbooks in Ukrainian and had collected money for this purpose. The gendarmes were puzzled by Kulish signing his letters "with his own hand" (rukoiu vlasnoiu), and he explained that in the old days not only the Hetmans, but all literate people used this phrase.

    In his novel The Black Council, Kulish portrayed the disunity among Ukrainian leaders following Khmelnytsky's death. He denied having seen the appeals to Ukrainians, Russians, and Poles and claimed that they belonged to Bilozersky. The same answer was given when he was asked why he had copied Shevchenko's "The Caucasus" with his own hand. All the other manuscripts found in Kulish's possession belonged, he said, to Bilozersky. He admitted writing the "Pocket Book for Landowners," which, however, contained no anti-government sentiments. His drawing of a severed head surmounted by an eagle he explained as an illustration of a folksong. Kulish was then asked to explain why he had warned his friend Chuikevych against marriage. He answered that his friend was ill with venereal disease, which had to be cured before marriage. However, he also admitted that Chuikevych would gain by remaining unmarried and free to continue his studies. He also admitted that on his trip abroad he was carrying some letters from Ukraine addressed to the Slavists Stur and Hanka, and that he had on him the Paris address of Mickiewicz.

    Having described his meetings with his Kievan friends in a way that did not incriminate them, Kulish then defended his booklet on Ukrainian history, which the police described as "liberal." Kulish pointed out that the booklet had been passed by the censor. He finally denied that anything he had said or written was directed against the government, and he repudiated his membership in the Brotherhood, [65] the existence of which, he claimed, was unknown to him. In his autobiography Kulish adds some details of the interrogation. Apparently, at one point Kulish lost his temper and behaved towards his inquisitors like "his grandfather, the fiery Kulish, in his apiary."25 General Dubelt tried to pacify him by promising him forgiveness if only he confessed his crimes. Kulish then declared that his only crime was his love for his native country.

    The arrest and trial came at a very crucial time in Kulish's life, when he and his wife were setting out for Western Europe. His entire career had been ended, and it must have been especially galling for him to be arrested in the residence of General Paskevich, in the presence of another high tsarist official, the Ukrainian, Storozhenko. Kulish was a loyal subject of the tsar, and the accusations flung at him at the trial hurt him deeply.


    The final, particularly noteworthy testimony was given by Shevchenko on April 21. The questioning focused on his poems, which were found on him when he was arrested. When asked why he preferred writing poetry to painting, he briefly told the story of his liberation from serfdom, adding that he had loved poetry from childhood and started writing in 1837. After the success of his poem "Catherine," he continued writing poetry without giving up painting.

    When asked eleven questions about his membership and activity in the Brotherhood, he answered "no" in each case. He admitted to knowing Kostomarov and Kulish well and the other members of the group only slightly. When asked why he composed revolutionary verses, read them aloud, and allowed them to be copied so that an uprising could be staged in Ukraine, Shevchenko answered laconically: "The Little Russians liked my poems and I composed and read them without any [ulterior] aim. I did not allow them to be copied, but was careless in not hiding them."26 When asked why he wrote slanderous verses about the imperial family, Shevchenko's answer was even more blunt: "While I was in St. Petersburg I heard widespread insolence and censure of the emperor and his government. Returning to Little Russia I heard even more ...'.' Therefore, having heard the laments about poverty, serfdom, and oppression of the peasants by landlords, all done in the name of the tsar and the government, he believed what he heard and, "having forgotten his conscience and the fear of God," wrote against his benefactor, demonstrating his own folly (bezumie). Questioned further as to whether his friends liked his poems because of their revolutionary content, Shevchenko answered that they were probably liked because they were written in Ukrainian. Shevchenko denied that he was instrumental in the plan to issue a journal in all the Slavic languages, and he carefully refused to say much about some of his earlier [66] friends. At the end of the interrogation he once more pleaded ignorance.

    On May 15 there was a confrontation (ochnaia stavka) between Shevchenko and Andruzsky. The repeated charges by Andruzsky that Shevchenko was the leader of the radical Ukrainian wing within the Brotherhood, which aimed at the restoration of the Hetman state, that he had cursed all the monarchists, and that he elevated the Hetman Mazepa as well as read slanderous verses were all, except the last one, firmly rejected by Shevchenko. Next to Hulak's, Shevchenko's conduct at the trial was the most dignified and steadfast. He did not implicate any of his friends, and he boldly admitted writing poetry that was held to be both slanderous and seditious. The police journal noted dissatisfaction with Shevchenko's answers. "The artist Shevchenko has finished his answers, but his testimony sheds no light on the matter."27 The gendarmes concluded that it was not so much Shevchenko's poetry as art, but as ideas, coupled with his bold personal behaviour, that accounted for his popularity. This assessment was correct, and, as we shall see later, Count Orlov's summary was very perceptive.

    The Sentencing

    Sentence was pronounced (not publicly, of course) in May and June. The heaviest sentence was meted out to the last accused, Shevchenko. Neither he nor Kulish was found guilty of belonging to the Brotherhood, yet Shevchenko was sentenced to serve for life as a private soldier in the Orenburg Corps. The head of the investigation, Count Orlov, wrote to the tsar on May 28 that Shevchenko could have been the instrument of the conspirators, but that their plans were not as serious as at first thought; on the other hand, Shevchenko had started writing before the Brotherhood was organized. Therefore, although the poet was not directly involved in the society and "acted independently," because of his "rebellious spirit and insolence" he should be regarded as one of the chief transgressors.28 In a letter to the army minister Prince Chernyshev on May 30, Orlov said that, because of his rebellious and slanderous poems, Shevchenko was sentenced by the tsar to serve his sentence "under the strictest surveillance, forbidden to write or to sketch,"29 so that no more verses would flow from his pen.

    Kulish was sentenced to four months' incarceration in the Peter and Paul fortress, with subsequent banishment to Vologda (later changed to Tula). Orlov's conclusion was that Kulish showed "excessive love for his native land."30 He then wrote that Kulish's works and thoughts "could instil in the minds of the Little Russians an opinion about their right to a separate existence from the Empire."31 Kulish's [67] letter to General Dubelt, written on April 2432 and begging for forgiveness, was obviously left unanswered.

    Next to Shevchenko's, Hulak's sentence was the most severe, once again reflecting the gendarmes' annoyance at his steadfast behaviour. He was judged to be the "chief organizer" of the Brotherhood and was sentenced to three years' incarceration in the Schlisselburg fortress, with subsequent banishment to a distant province under the strictest surveillance. The tsar added a comment: "He must be corrected in his thinking (obraze mysley)."33

    Kostomarov drew a relatively mild sentence: one year's incarceration in the Peter and Paul fortress and then banishment to a distant Great Russian province (at first Viatka, then Saratov), with no possibility of any scholarly activity. In a "compassionate" gesture the tsar ordered that a year of Kostomarov's salary be paid to his mother.34 Obviously, Kostomarov's contrition at the trial had been effective.

    Bilozersky was sentenced to four months in the fortress and subsequent banishment. Andruzsky, because of his youth and undoubtedly because of his voluble testimony, was ordered to be transferred to the University of Kazan and subsequently to be banished from Ukraine. The same sentence was given to Posiada. Navrotsky was banished to Viatka, where he was to be imprisoned for six months. He was then to remain in Viatka under police surveillance. Markovych was banished to Orel, and Savych, who was apprehended in July in Germany and, despite a suicide attempt, was extradited and brought to Russia, was the only one allowed to remain on his estate in the province of Poltava, under police surveillance.

    The informer Petrov was rewarded for his services by receiving a post in the Third Section in addition to a payment of five hundred silver rubles. He was also given a document testifying that he had finished the university program.

    Most sentences were pronounced on June 12,1847, and it was on this day that Kostomarov saw, through his window, Shevchenko being escorted by policemen in the courtyard. They waved to each other. Shevchenko, while on trial, felt in good spirits and wrote some of his best poetry, which he dedicated to his co-prisoners (souznyky). The poet remained fearless. He even asked, defiantly, in his poem, that the circle of friends remain untouched, and that they should all "love their Ukraine in her most evil times."35

    Orlov's Report

    It is clear that the sentences were meted out not for any actions committed, but for the thoughts of the brethren. The desire to control all human thought, especially within the Empire, the drive to "conformity of ideas" (yedinomyslie), was, and still is, the ideal of Russian [68] internal government policy. It is amply illustrated in the trial of the Brotherhood. The police realized that as a centre of clandestine activity the Brotherhood amounted to very little. But it posed a serious threat as an intellectual centre, disseminating ideas. These ideas and their originators had to be banished.

    In the report that Count Orlov submitted to the tsar, it is clear that the police realized very well the danger these ideas represented. A complete, published transcript of Orlov's report is available, but the excerpts that have been published during the last twenty years, mostly dealing with Shevchenko, illustrate the main point. It was not so much the idea of a Slavic federation that frightened the gendarmes, and it is even possible to argue that the sentences given to Kostomarov and Hulak were relatively light. Their transgression in advocating the Slavic union was not as grave as the sin of Shevchenko's Ukrainian poetry. Panslavic ideas were, after all, an offshoot of official policy, a perversion of it, to be sure, in the eyes of the police. The possible repercussions of heavy sentences to the "Slavists" on future government policies had to be taken into account. Therefore, the sentences were relatively mild. On the other hand, the Ukrainian ideas of the Brotherhood, especially as expressed by Shevchenko, were dangerous and had to be nipped in the bud. Therefore, Orlov wrote, "[in Kiev] young people unite the idea of unity of the Slavs with thoughts of the restoration of language, literature, and manners of Little Russia, even including dreams of a return to the times of anarchy (volnitsa) and the Hetmanate."36

    Regarding Shevchenko, Orlov wrote to the tsar: "In [his verse Shevchenko] lamented the alleged enslavement and misfortune of Ukraine, sometimes proclaimed the glory of the Hetman rule and the former Cossack freedom.... and acquired among his friends the reputation of a great Little Russian writer, and therefore his poems are doubly harmful and dangerous."37 A little further on in the report he asked that the censors who allowed Shevchenko's, Kulish's, and Kos-tomarov's works to be printed be given a severe reprimand. Works such as these, he maintained, should be banned.

    It is interesting, however, that the final section of Orlov's report to the tsar, devoted to the Brotherhood itself, is much more circumspect. Professor Papazian, who had access to the report in the archives, summed it up very well:

    The final section of the report gives the "general conclusions" of the police investigation: 1. The Cyrilo-Methodian Society was nothing more than the "scholarly delirium" of three young people: Hulak, Bilozersky and Kostomarov. 2. There was no direct danger from the Society to the government since no attempt had been made to attract military men or even the common people into membership. The danger of the group was more in the insidious, slow growth of ill-feeling and dissatisfaction which it inspired. 3. It should be best to inflict punishment without an open trial, but not to keep the punishment secret "so that all will know what [69] is in store for those who go against the law." Those who envisioned the movement were characterized as being against the tsar, and it was important that others be warned against such behaviour.38

    The excerpts from Orlov's report are given in Appendix 7 to this book. They confirm his conviction that the importance of the Brotherhood was exaggerated, but Shevchenko and Kulish had to be watched carefully in the future, even if they did not officially belong to the Brotherhood.

    Most of the recommendations of Orlov's report, as far as sentencing was concerned, were approved by the tsar, who wrote "carry out" (ispolnit) on it in pencil, as well as various comments about the individual offenders. The case was finished, at least as far as the government was concerned. Yet all the perspicacity and intelligence of the secret police and all its powerful means of suppression, so well exercised on this occasion, were powerless against these ideas, for bans, sentences, banishment, or even the tsar's personal orders could not stop their march. [70]

    Notes to Chapter V

    1. T. Shevchenko, Povne zibrannia tvoriv, Vol. IV, S. Ye[fremov], ed. (Kiev, 1927), pp. 553-55.

    2. Ibid., Vol. Ill, pp. 539-40.

    3. Valeriy Marchenko, "Mykola Hulak," Suchasnist, 4,5 (1982); V. Mijakovskyj, Unpublished and Forgotten Writings (New York, 1984), pp. 120-24.

    4. Ibid., p. 105.

    5. H. Serhienko, T. H. Shevchenko i kyrylo-mefodievske tovarystvo (Kiev, 1983), p. 146.

    6. For a very detailed account of the inquest, see D. Papazian, "Nicholas Ivanovich Kostomarov; Russian Historian, Ukrainian Nationalist, Slavic Federalist," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (University of Michigan, 1966), pp. 222-57.

    7. M. Hrushevsky, ed., "Materialy do istorii Kyrylo-Mefodiivskoho bratstva," Zbirnyk pamiaty Tarasa Shevchenka (Kiev, 1915), p. 115.

    8. Ibid., p. 146.

    9. V. Miiakovsky, "Uryvok z opovidannia Kostomarova 'Panych Na-talych,' " Ukraina, 1-2 (1924): 131.

    10. Hrushevsky, "Materialy do istorii Kyrylo-Mefodiivskoho bratstva," p. 156.

    11. Ibid., p. 234.

    12. Ibid., p. 243.

    13. Ibid., p. 187.

    14. Ibid., p. 198.

    15. Ibid.

    16. Ibid., p. 209.

    17. Ibid., p. 132.

    18. Ibid., p. 133.

    19. Ibid., p. 136.

    20. There is strong evidence in Shevchenko's biography and works to support Andruzsky's claim. In 1843, during his stay with Prince Repnin at Yahotyn, Shevchenko was to write a libretto to the opera "Mazepa." The project fell through when he disagreed with the composer Seletsky, to whom Mazepa was a traitor. At about the same time, Shevchenko drew a sketch of Mazepa's death in the presence of Charles XII. He disliked Pushkin's treatment of the Hetman in "Poltava." Finally, in the poem "Irzhavets" (1847), he blamed the defeat of Charles XII and Mazepa at Poltava in 1709 on the lack of Ukrainian unity. For more details of this very unusual (for its times) admiration of Mazepa, see G. Luckyj, "Shevchenkovi zustrichi z Mazepoiu," Suchasnist, 12 (1986).

    21. Hmshevsky, "Materialy do istorii Kyrylo-Mefodiivskoho bratstva," p. 141.

    22. Mijakovskyj, Unpublished and Forgotten Writings, p. 101.

    23. Hrushevsky, "Materialy do istorii Kyrylo-Mefodiivskoho bratstva," p. 255.

    24. Ibid., pp. 168-69.

    25. "Zhyzn Kulisha," Pravda (Lviv, 1868), p. 299.

    26. Hrushevsky, "Materialy do istorii Kyrylo-Mefodiivskoho bratstva," p. 166.

    27. Serhienko, T. H. Shevchenko i kyrylo-mefodievske tovarystvo, p. 150.

    28. P. Zaionchkovsky, Kirillo-Mefodievskoe obshchestvo (Moscow, 1959), p. 132.

    29. Taras Shevchenko; dokumenty i materialy do biohrafii (Kiev, 1982), p. 132.

    30. M. Vozniak, Kyrylo-metodiivske bratstvo (Lviv, 1921), p. 219.

    31. S. Yefremov and O. Doroshkevych, eds., Panteleimon Kulish (Kiev, 1927), p. 14.

    32. Zaionchkovsky, Kirillo-Mefodievskoe obshchestvo, p. 124.

    33. Ibid., p. 132.

    34. Ibid., p. 133.

    35. T. Shevchenko, Povne zibrannia tvoriv v shesty tomakh, Vol. II (Kiev, 1963-64), p. 18.

    36. Here quoted from O. Pelech, "Toward a Historical Sociology of the Ukrainian Ideologues in the Russian Empire of the 1830s and 1840s," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Princeton, 1976), p. 239.

    37. Taras Shevchenko; dokumenty i materialy do biohrafii, p. 130.

    38. Papazian, "Nicholas Ivanovich Kostomarov; Russian Historian, Ukrainian Nationalist, Slavic Federalist," p. 214.


    The Aftermath

    Subversion and sedition, half-conscious, perhaps, but still very real to the men concerned, were paralyzing forces for the rest of their lives. The central idea of the Brotherhood—the Slavic federation—was crushed and extirpated from their minds, and they did not return to it in their lifetimes. Yet the idea of a Ukrainian revival lived on and was taken up later by the same brethren quite vigorously. Here one must first note the relatively mild manner in which the banishments and strict supervisions were carried out. Alas, this comparative mildness of an authoritarian regime has disappeared under today's totalitarianism. Under the tsarist regime the prisoners were treated humanely, their sentences often lightened, and restrictions removed.

    This was evident for each of the brethren. Shevchenko, although surreptitiously, was allowed to draw and write (he remained silent from 1850 to 1857), even if he had to hide his verses in his army boots. He made friends among his captors and was detailed for a while to participate in the Aral Sea expedition. In 1847, in Orsk fortress, he wrote a poem in which he said that he "suffered and was tormented but did not repent . . . ."l As a result of intercession by his friends, he was, after the death of Nicholas I, able to return as a free man to St. Petersburg and even to travel to Ukraine. This occurred in 1857 when, broken in health but not in spirit, he was released. He still managed to write some excellent poetry before his death in 1861.

    Kostomarov spent his exile in relative comfort in Saratov. General Dubelt's note to the governor of the province—"Be kind to him. This is a good man who made a mistake, but has repented it"2—worked wonders. Kostomarov was allowed to continue his research and writing on history and ethnography. This he did when not working as an official in the governor's office. He was even allowed to travel as far as the Crimea. In 1855, after the death of the tsar, Kostomarov was allowed to return to St. Petersburg. Almost immediately he went on an extended trip to Western Europe for medical treatment. On returning to Russia he met briefly with the freed Shevchenko, whom he later visited regularly in St. Petersburg. Soon, in 1859, he was offered a chair of history at the university in that city. Even before then he had reestablished contacts with the Ukrainians in St. Petersburg and partially returned to his Ukrainian scholarly interests. In 1860 he published (anonymously) a letter in defence of the Ukrainian cause in Herzen's emigre publication, The Bell, a courageous step for an ex-convict. In the letter he did not depart from the position he had taken in the days of the Brotherhood.

    In 1861-62 Kostomarov was an active contributor to the Ukrainian journal Osnova (Foundation) in St. Petersburg. There he published his famous article "Dve russkie narodnosti" (Two Russian Nationalities), holding that the Russians were more autocratic and Ukrainians more democratic in nature. Early in 1862 he was involved in a "free university" organized by students, quarrelled with Chernyshevsky, and finally lost his post at the university. He retreated into the world of research and was not allowed to accept an offer from the University of Kiev. In 1873, in Kiev, he met his former fiancee, Alina, now a widow. Two years later they were married. In 1876 he bitterly attacked the so-called Ems ukaz, banning Ukrainian publications. The last years of his life were plagued by illness; he died in 1885. In his published works Kostomarov made a major contribution to Ukrainian history, and in his works on Russian history he defended the federalist principle.3 One can say that he remained faithful to the ideals of the Brotherhood.

    Hulak spent three years in the Schlisselburg fortress. Once he asked his gaolers to give him a copy of Euripides to read. He was an exemplary prisoner and on June 12, 1850, was released and sent to Perm. There he served as a minor official in the government statistical department. The governor of the province liked Hulak and asked that he be freed from police supervision. This happened in 1856, after the coronation of Alexander II. Hulak was allowed to take a teaching post in Odessa, and later in the Caucasus. In his spare time he wrote learned treatises on the Georgian poet Rustaveli, the Persian poet Nizami, and the relation of the Georgian language to the Indo-European family. At an archaeological congress in 1881 in Tbilisi he met Kostomarov, who kissed him, but Hulak retreated and disappeared. He died in Azer-baidzhan in 1899, having distanced himself from the Ukrainian movement and his former friends.

    Vasyl Bilozersky was among those brethren whose careers were little disrupted by their arrests. After spending some time in exile in Petrozavodsk, he was allowed to return to St. Petersburg, where he edited the journal Osnova. Never a prolific writer, he remained on the fringes of Ukrainian intellectual life, served as a minor official in Warsaw, and died in 1899 on his khutir near Borzna. Ivan Posiada completed his university studies in Kazan and served as a minor official in Riazan.

    Of the two brethren who were tried later, Opanas Markovych was exiled to Orel. There he met and married a Russian woman, Maria Vilinska, who, a few years later, became a well-known writer in Ukrainian under the pseudonym Marko Vovchok. There is no doubt that it was Markovych who guided Vilinska's Ukrainian interests. He worked as a teacher in Ukraine and did some research in folklore and ethnography. He died in Chernihiv in 1867, after an unhappy marriage, but to the end remained devoted to the Ukrainian cause. The second accused, Mykola Savych, was under arrest for half a year, whereupon he was allowed to return to his estate in Ukraine. He lived there for two years, then in 1849 he moved to Odessa, where he died in 1892. To the end he retained his early "scepticism about everything."4 At the end of his life he was very unwilling to talk about his days in the Brotherhood.

    Oleksander Navrotsky spent some time under arrest and in exile in Viatka. Later he served in Kursk, St. Petersburg, and the Caucasus. He married and had children. He was full of nostalgia for Ukraine, which he was not allowed to visit. He left interesting although brief memoirs, many Ukrainian poems, and some translations of the Odyssey, Shelley, and Milton into Ukrainian. Many of his poems were dedicated to Hulak and Kostomarov. He died in Temir-Khan-Shur in 1892.5 Andruzsky spent his exile in Petrozavodsk. In March 1850 his living quarters were searched. The police found a draft project of a federal government for a union of the Slavic countries excluding Russia. It also envisaged the creation of an academy of arts and sciences and a university for women. The project was dismissed as the work of an unbalanced mind. All the same, Andruzsky was sent to the Solovky islands, where he remained until 1854.6 The traitor Petrov did not stay in his new police job for long. He denounced General Dubelt to the tsar. However, this time he was not believed and was deported to Olo-nets. Before his death he returned to Ukraine and died there in 1883.

    The most remarkable recovery after exile was demonstrated by Panteleimon Kulish. He did not expect to be punished, since his membership in the Brotherhood had not been established and the book he had written had been passed by the censor. When a sentence of incarceration and three years' exile was pronounced, he was shattered. He wrote some abjectly grovelling letters to General Dubelt, and it took him some time to get accustomed to life in Tula. His wife accompanied him and sometimes travelled to St. Petersburg to intercede on his behalf with Pletnev and others. His stay in Tula was not uncomfortable. He served as a minor official in the governor's office and had time to read and write. On his release in 1850 he tried in vain to get a government post in St. Petersburg, and after a while he returned to his Ukrainian interests. The years 1856 and 1857 saw the publication of his major historical novel, in both Russian and Ukrainian, Oiorna rada (The Black Council) and Zapiski o yuzhnoi Rusi (Notes on Southern Rus) in two volumes. In 1858 Kulish published Marko Vovchok's Narodni opovidan-nia (Folk Tales), introducing a prominent new writer into Ukrainian literature. The Ukrainian Gogol's great contribution to Russian literature, which Kulish was the first to assess (he was Gogol's first biographer), was thus repaid by a Russian woman's contribution to Ukrainian literature, made at the prompting of her husband, a member of the Brotherhood.

    Kulish was not allowed to become the editor of Osnova, but he became its chief contributor. Later, he served for three years (1864-67) as a high tsarist official in Warsaw, made some vital contacts with the Ukrainians in Galicia, and settled down on a khutir in Ukraine. In 1882 he briefly contemplated giving up Russian citizenship and working for the Ukrainians in Lviv. This is a testimony to Kulish's independence of spirit. Although he became alienated from the younger generation of Ukrainian populists, he continued writing prose and poetry, translated the Bible and Shakespeare into Ukrainian, and made a lasting contribution to Ukrainian culture. Until his death in 1897 he believed in Ukraine's political federation with Russia, but the more idealistic views of his youth were not abandoned,7 although in reminiscing about the Brotherhood in 1884 he blamed Kostomarov for swaying him with talk of politics, which meant "the loss of many good years."8

    The echo of the trial in Ukraine was naturally subdued, but clear. It was expressed in many different ways. Oleksandra Psiol, who met Shevchenko in 1843 at the Repnin estate, wrote a cycle of three poems dedicated primarily to the sentenced brethren. They are compared to flowers withered by frost and eaglets attacked by a hawk.9 After the arrest in April 1847, the police confiscated a placard entitled "Do vir-nykh syniv Ukrainy" (To the true sons of Ukraine) on one of the buildings in Kiev.10 The proclamation was in protest against the Brotherhood's dispersal by the authorities. Count Orlov himself was interested in hearing of the repercussions of the trial and asked for regional police reports. A detailed report on the rumours about the trial was received from the province of Poltava.11 Another report, from Cherkasy, dated July 7,1847, claimed that there was "trouble in Little Russia, and subsequently 30 men were arrested."12 News reached the authorities that Shevchenko's published works were enjoying renewed popularity (an advertisement to that effect was printed in a St. Petersburg newspaper) in parts of the country as distant as the Northern Caucasus. The censor, A. Nikitenko, wrote in his diary on May 2, 1847, that a Slavic union had been uncovered in Kiev, which had aimed at a "Slavic federation on democratic principles, like the North American States."13 A member of the Petrashevsky circle, M. Mombelli, noted rumours about the trial in his diary for August 1847. He named Shevchenko, Kulish, and Kos-tomarov among those arrested. He attached great importance to the revolutionary potential of the Brotherhood.14 Vissarion Belinsky, in a private letter to Annenkov, made some very spiteful comments about the brethren:

    Shevchenko has been sent to the Caucasus as a soldier. I am not sorry for him; if I were his judge I would be no less severe. I feel a personal animosity toward this type of liberal. They are enemies of all progress. With their impudent stupidities they provoke the authorities and make them suspect a rebellion where there is none and provoke measures which are sharp and disastrous for literature and enlightenment. . . ,15

    In the same letter he referred to Kulish as "one beast from the khokhol liberals . . . what a piglike name."16

    Powerful echoes of the Brotherhood's demise were felt among the Poles. This time Ukrainian events influenced Polish revolutionary activities. At the University of Kiev a Polish revolutionary circle was formed, in close touch with Polish and Ukrainian students. One of its organizers, Zygmunt Milkowski (known under the pseudonym of Jez), left an account of it in his memoirs, making clear that the Poles acted under the influence of the Ukrainian brotherhood, "which was surrounded by secrecy, giving it a colossal shape."17 The Polish circle went much further in its program than the Brotherhood—it called for an armed uprising. It was never uncovered by the police. Another Ukrainian secret cirde, spawned by the Brotherhood in 1847, was at the University of Kharkiv, where a student, Holovko, boasted that "1000 men are willing to fight for Shevchenko's ideas."18 This circle was suppressed.

    Echoes of the trial of the brethren reached Western Europe. The Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung, on July 4,1847, reported the trial, as did the French Journal des debats in Paris. In Galicia Dnevnyk rusky (Ruth-enian Daily) reported the trial in October 1848. This widespread coverage in the Western media was beyond all expectations.

    The trial had some serious repercussions on the tsarist bureaucracy. The chief inquisitor, Count Orlov, submitted a memorandum to the tsar on May 26,1847, entitled "On the Slavophiles," on which the tsar commented "It is just." The memorandum noted the useful work of the Slavophiles in Moscow, but deplored the activities of the Ukrain-ophiles, who were dangerous because they could lead the Ukrainians and other subject peoples to a desire "for an independent existence."19 The minister of education, Count Uvarov, had a different view of the affair of the Brotherhood. In a memorandum to the tsar on May 8,1847, entitled "On the Slavs," he argued that there are two Panslavisms, one pro-Russian and the other anti-Russian. Russian Panslavism had to be encouraged, but the Ukrainian Panslavism of the Brotherhood was dangerous. Yet Uvarov, anxious to retain his pro-Slavic policy at the universities, gave this curious explanation of the "crime" of the Cyrilo-Methodians:

    One shouldn't accuse the Ukrainian spirit of the criminal conspiracies of several lunatics, with whom, indubitably, neither the higher class, nor the local clergy and even less the countless majority of peaceful and submissive denizens have nothing in common. The spirit of Little Russia does not belong to any insidious conspiracy . . . .20

    In other words, Uvarov was anxious to minimize the Brotherhood affair. He issued circulars to schools and universities, re-emphasizing the importance of Slavic studies if executed in accordance with official policies. This apparently led to a bureaucratic war between him and the superintendent of the Moscow school district, S. Stroganov. Pelech comments on the outcome of the disagreement as follows: "Stroganov was relieved of his post (November 20, 1847), but he sought his vengeance early next year when he sent a denunciation to the tsar entitled 'On Liberalism, Communism and Socialism ruling in the censorship and the whole Ministry of Popular Enlightenment'. . . ." "The revolutions of 1848 only confirmed Nicholas' fears of higher education . . . and Uvarov found himself in the position of the 'liberal' who can be dispensed with in the national interest."21 Pelech admits that Uvarov's fall in 1849 was, in some measure, attributable to the Brotherhood affair, which "did help to weaken Uvarov, because it discredited Slavic studies . . . Z'22 Thus, the activities of the brethren were the cause of a tightening of control, especially at the universities. To those in power in 1848 it must have seemed that, despite their losses, the machinery of control was not only still in place, but had become even more efficient. Little did they anticipate the incremental effectiveness of humane ideas. "Though the mills of God grind slowly," Kostomarov would have said, quoting the Bible, "yet they grind exceeding small."

    What was this humaneness? The first contributor to it was the Christian view of the love of one's neighbour, which led Shevchenko to his concept of bratoliubie (brotherly love). The young Kostomarov had been an avid reader of Thomas a Kempis and Swedenborg, as well as the Bible. Yet his deeply felt Christian beliefs were mingled with Romanticism and nationalism. The Christian view of the value of the individual soul was supplanted by the romantic view of the goodness of the common people, whom Kostomarov, the historian, regarded as the prime movers of human history. Seeing the narod enslaved and illiterate, he pleaded for their liberation, while immersing himself in the riches of the Ukrainian folk culture. This led to a kind of spiritual and cultural conversion from Russia to Ukraine, and his convert's zeal remained undiminished even after his arrest. So deeply was Kostomarov's "Ukrainian-ness" internalized that years of living in Russia could not erase it.

    This first great Ukrainian historian, half-Russian in origin, was followed by Volodymyr Antonovych, who was descended from Polonized szlachta. Both serve as examples of the magnetic force of the Ukrainian revival. There were many more Kostomarovs and Antono-vyches, but not as many as there were native Ukrainians who went over to the Russian intellectual camp. The attraction of Ukraine in the 1840s lay precisely in her quietude, picturesqueness, and provincialism. But underneath there were traces of a communal and societal structure that was different from that of Russia. For example, there were the Cossack electoral traditions and the church brotherhoods. Schools in Ukraine were plentiful before Catherine II regimented the educational system and introduced serfdom to Ukraine in 1783. But the remnants of the ancient liberties were still, if not alive, then at least perceptible in Kostomarov's and Shevchenko's day. It is possible, therefore, in one sense to regard the Cyrilo-Methodian episode as a revival of the native traditions of Ukraine. Even the memories of the Hetman state, with the clear recollection that in 1654 Ukraine was not vanquished by Russia but sought the latter's protection as a free country, were still alive among the impoverished gentry and the peasantry, both learning by heart the Cossack dumy. Shevchenko's grandfather was an inspiration to the young boy when he reminisced about the Haidamaks of the eighteenth century. There was a deep well of oral tradition from which Ukrainian Romantic poetry rose. Naturally, the past was idealized, as it always is, but there was a recent past of a distinct national existence and even glory. Factors such as these are much more instrumental in the reawakening of a national psyche than, for example, the growth of the clothing and sugar-beet industries, to which Marxist scholars, like Zaionchkovsky and Serhienko, have to pay their dues. But they alone do not explain the creation of the Brotherhood or its ideology.

    The second round of humane ideas comes from foreign, Western European sources. The division of Ukraine in the 1840s between Russian and Polish cultural influences had a stimulating effect on the intellectuals. Through Poland, Austria, and Germany came direct Western trends and fashions, although Russia, too, in those days was more open to the West. "The Russo-Polish struggle was a retarding factor," wrote Ivan Rudnytsky, "in the process of assimilation to either neighbour. It prevented the Ukrainian problem from becoming fully and exclusively an internal concern of Russia."23 Apart from the Enlightenment and Free Masonry, Western influences on the Cyrilo-Methodians came primarily from western Slavic countries, particularly Poland (or the Polish emigres in France) and Bohemia. These influences came on the eve of the revolutionary movements of 1848 and had both nationalist and federalist coloration. The movement was against autocracy and in favour of power-sharing by the people. The ethnic aspirations within the Austrian Empire were best expressed in the trends leading to the Slavic Congress in Prague in 1848. Opinions dissenting from the government's point of view were expressed openly, unlike in the Russian Empire. Although in the 1840s no close links existed between the Ukrainians in Galicia and those in the Russian Empire, the flow of ideas from west to east was quite apparent. Even those contacts between Russian and Czech Slavists, sponsored by Uvarov in order to spread Russian influence to the west, went both ways. Thus, within the framework of Panslavism, western currents brought to Ukraine ideas of democracy and federalism as the only effective defence against autocracy. Romanticism, also a Western product, led to the discovery of the common folk in both Russia and Ukraine^the peasants.

    It may appear that Christian ideas of brotherly love and an advocacy of nationalism do not go hand in hand. Yet they did complement each other in the minds of the brethren, who saw nationalism not as a political movement, but as the true realization of common humanity. The peasants, the humble servants of God, were its bearers. They were to be enlightened by those with greater education in order to serve God even better. All this had to be done in a language they could understand. There is clearly religious content in the first Ukrainian primers for the peasants, published in the 1850s and 1860s by the former brethren Kulish and Shevchenko.24 Religion and nationality were not yet considered a dangerous mixture, but were elevated as natural allies in the improvement of society.

    The Cyrilo-Methodians, few in number but talented and influential, consciously elevated themselves to the position of the first Ukrainian intellectuals in the modern era. They saw how the old Ukrainian elite had abandoned the interests of the common people and become members of the Russian establishment. The descendants of the Cossack starshyna (officer corps) by the early nineteenth century were happy to be included among the Russian nobility and gentry and to serve the interests of the Empire. They could be and were regarded as betrayers of the interests of the narod (one of the principal themes of Shevchenko's poetry). Two centuries after the great popular uprising of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, which the Ukrainian Romantics regarded as exclusively a people's war of liberation, nothing was left of the freedoms then won. It was, therefore, with the idea of inspiring the people with new ideas of liberation that the brethren took up the struggle. They were the first Ukrainian intellectuals—the "true believers." As self-elected intellectual leaders always do, they were motivated by altruism and "love of one's neighbour," which they preached and believed in. Unconsciously, they set a pattern for the Ukrainian intelligentsia for years to come. The model was Romantic, populist, and nationalist, in that order. The culture, ostensibly created for the peasants, became the "opium of the intellectuals." Intellectual Utopia permeated it. The striking fact is, again, that this model survived for so long, until 1917 and even later. What was the secret of its success, apart from its mythic quality and the aura of martyrdom conferred on it by the tsarist police?

    For some time after 1847, no other models were possible. Tsarist oppression simply forbade all other forms of expression of what was known as Ukrainophilism. Then, in 1860, it allowed the publication of Osnova (Foundation), and around it there formed a circle of writers and intellectuals (in St. Petersburg, of course, not in Ukraine). However, the main leaders of Osnova, Bilozersky and Kulish, were former Cyrilo-Methodians. They simply continued their old activity, minus the secrecy, spreading Ukrainian literature and culture to an ever-widening readership. The younger generation of contributors, however, was less romantic and more positivist. Among them was Volodymyr Antono-vych (1834-1908), Kostomarov's successor in the field of Ukrainian history. He and the Kiev old "Hromada" (Community) were now positivist in orientation, yet still continuing the federalist tradition of the previous generation. The father of Ukrainian socialism, Mykhailo Dra-homanov (1841-95), was also a federalist. After 1876 his activity centred mostly in Western Europe and Galicia.

    It was the federalist aspect of Cyrilo-Methodian ideology, rather than its Christian, millenarian, or nationalist elements, that survived the longest. In fact, the populist and federalist ideology in Ukrainian scholarship and politics stretches to include Mykhailo Hrushevsky (1866-1934), the greatest modern Ukrainian historian and the leader of the Central Rack in 1917-18. Writing in 1917, Hrushevsky was fully convinced that the "New Ukraine," which "stands before us in full stature after today's revolution," had "its origin in the society of 1846—[among] the Cyrilo-Methodian brethren."25 He traced their philosophical origins back to the libertarian and democratic traditions of the Cossacks as well as to church brotherhoods, and he admitted that without Shevchenko's poetry, "the spiritual effort of the Cyrilo-Methodians would have been wasted."26 He ended his article with the deep conviction that the "Brotherhood's cause ... is being fulfilled now."27 Indeed, during the brief period of Ukrainian independence (1918-19), the Ukrainian socialists who controlled the Central Rada advocated federation with Russia, and only when faced with defeat did they issue a proclamation of complete independence.

    The only modern Ukrainian thinkers to depart from the populist and federalist models were Viacheslav Lypynsky (1882-1931) and Dmy-tro Dontsov (1883-1973). Neither had any significant influence on the largest part of Ukraine, which in 1920 fell under Soviet rule. Lypynsky, a monarchist, was the ideologue of Ukrainian conservatism. On the other hand, Dontsov represented modern Ukrainian "integral nationalism," which was quite influential in the Polish Ukraine in the 1919-39 period. As in the case of Poland, integral nationalism displayed some vestiges of the earlier political Romanticism.28 But both Lypynsky and Dontsov in fact rejected the main premises of the Cyrilo-Metho-dian Brotherhood. Yet, mirabile dictu, the Soviets put forth their own model of populism and federalism, which, despite its falsity, is still in force today. The original idea of the Brotherhood has been perverted in the extreme, but it continues to exhort everyone to follow the shining path of brotherly love. For it preaches that the unthinkable is really attainable. The stone that the builders rejected may yet become the cornerstone.

    Notes to Chapter VI

    1. T. Shevchenko, Povne zibrannia tvoriv v shesty tomakh, Vol. II (Kiev, 1963-64), p. 50.

    2. M. Vozniak, Kyrylo-metodiivske bratstvo (Lviv, 1921), p. 220.

    3. See S. F. Starr, Decentralization and Self-Government in Russia, 1830-1870 (Princeton, 1972).

    4. L. M., "N. I. Savich," Kievskaia starina, 2 (1904): 233.

    5. A. Shr-ko, "A. A. Navrotsky," Kievskaia starina, 12 (1902).

    6. P. Zaionchkovsky, Kirillo-Mefodievskoe obshchestvo (Moscow, 1959), pp. 134-35.

    7. For a comprehensive assessment of Kulish, see G. Luckyj, Pante-leimon Kulish; A Sketch of His Life and Times (New York, 1983).

    8. Nov, IV (1884): 63.

    9. Trydsiat ukrainskykh poetes; antolohiia (Kiev, 1968), p. 45.

    10. H. Serhienko, T. H. Shevchenko i kyrylo-mefodievske tovarystvo (Kiev, 1983), p. 147.

    11. Ibid., p. 166.

    12. Ibid., p. 167.

    13. A. Nikitenko, Dnevnikvtrekh tomakh, Vol. I (Moscow, 1955), p. 305.

    14. Delo petrashevtsev, Vol. I (Moscow-Leningrad, 1937), p. 309.

    15. V. Belinsky, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, Vol. Ill, p. 441.

    16. Ibid.

    17. T. T. Jez, Od kolebki przez zycie, Vol. I (Krakow, 1936), p. 236.

    18. P. Zaitsev, Zhyttia Tarasa Shevchenka (Munich, 1955), p. 193.

    19. Serhienko, T. H. Shevchenko i kyrylo-mefodievske tovarystvo, p. 161.

    20. Here quoted from O. Pelech, "Toward a Historical Sociology of the Ukrainian Ideologues in the Russian Empire of the 1830s and 1840s," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Princeton, 1976), p. 237.

    21. Ibid., pp. 242-43.

    22. Ibid., p. 243.

    23. I. L. Rudnytsky, "The Intellectual Origins of Modern Ukraine," The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S., 3-4 (1958): 1386.

    24. T. Shevchenko, Bukvar yuzhnorussky (St. Petersburg, 1861); P. Kulish, Hramatka (St. Petersburg, 1857).

    25. M. Hrushevsky, "V simdesiati rokovyny kyrylo-metodiivskoi spravy," Literaturno-naukovy vistnyk, 1 (1917); reprinted in Ukrainsky istoryk, \-A (1984): 220.

    26. Ibid., p. 223.

    27. Ibid., p. 224.

    28. See A. Walicki, Philosophy and Romantic Nationalism: The Case of Poland (Oxford, 1982), pp. 354-55.


    The By-laws of the Slavic Society

    [Source: M. Hrushevsky, ed., "Materialy do istorii Kyrylo-Metodiivskoho bratstva/ Zbirnyk pamiaty Tarasa Shevchenka (Kiev, 1915)]

    1. We hold that the spiritual and political union of the Slavs is the true destiny to which they should aspire.

    2. We hold that at the time of their union each Slavic tribe should be independent and we acknowledge these tribes to be: The South Russians, the North Russians together with the Belorussians, the Poles, the Czechs with the Slovaks, the Lusatians, the Illyro-Serbians with the Slovenes and the Bulgarians.

    3. We hold that each tribe should be ruled by the people and should observe the complete equality of the citizens according to their birth, Christian faith and status.

    4. We hold that the government, legislation, the right to private property and to education of all the Slavs should be based on the holy religion of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

    5. We hold that in this condition of equality education and pure morals should be a stipulation for participation in government.

    6. We believe that a general Slavic council made up of representatives of all the tribes should come into being.


    The Chief Rules of the Society

    [Source: M. Hrushevsky, ed., "Materialy do istorii Kyrylo-Metodiivskoho bratstva," Zbirnyk pamiaty Tarasa Shevchenka (Kiev, 1915)]

    1. We have formed this society with the aim of spreading the ideas expressed [in The Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People] primarily through the education of young people, through literature and through an increase in the number of the society's members. The society names as its patrons the holy teachers Cyril and Methodius and accepts as its crest a ring or icon with either the names or a portrayal of these saints.

    2. Each member of the society takes an oath on joining, pledging to use his talent, work, status and his social contacts for the benefit of the society and if any member should suffer persecution and even torture by accepting the society's ideas, he will not betray any other members, his brethren.

    3. In a case where a member should fall into the hands of the enemy and leave his family in need, the society will help them.

    4. Each registered member of the society may induct a new member without mentioning the names of other members to him.

    5. Slavs of all tribes and professions may be inducted as members.

    6. Complete equality should prevail among all members.

    7. Since, at the present time, the Slavic tribes profess various religions and hold prejudices against one another, the society will attempt to destroy all tribal and religious hostility among them and encourage a possible reconciliation between the different Christian churches.

    8. The society will attempt in due time to eradicate serfdom and to promote the general spread of literacy.

    9. Like the society as a whole, each member should direct his actions according to the Gospel rule of love, humility and patience. The rule that ends justify means is held by the society to be godless.

    10. A few members of the society, residing in the same place, may hold meetings and decide on the rules for their activities as long as these do not contradict the principal ideas and rules of the society.

    11. No member should reveal the existence of the membership of the society to anyone who does not join or hope to join it.


    God's Law or The Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People

    [Source: Reprinted from B. Yanivsky (Mijakovskyj), Kostomarov's Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People (New York, 1954)]

    1. God created the world: the heaven and earth, and populated it with all the creatures and appointed man to have domination over all earthly things and commanded him to be fruitful and multiply and ordained that the human race be divided into generations and tribes; and to each generation and tribe He bestowed a land so that each generation and tribe might seek God, who is near man, and thus all people might worship and believe in Him and love Him, and all people would be happy.

    2. But the human race forgot God and gave itself to the devil, and each tribe invented its own gods and in each tribe the peoples invented their own gods and they waged war for these gods and the earth became soaked with blood and bestrewn with ashes and bones and in all the world there was grief, poverty, sickness, calamity and discord.

    3. So the just Lord punished the people with floods, wars, plagues and that which is worst of all—slavery.

    4. For there is one true God, and He is the sole King of the human race, but the people, as soon as they had created gods for themselves, in the same way created kings for themselves; for just as in every corner there was their own king, the people began to fight for their own kings and the earth became even more soaked with blood and bestrewn with ashes and bones, and in all the world grief and poverty and sickness and calamity and discord were multiplied.

    5. There is no other God but that God who dwells in celestial habitations and who is everywhere through His Holy Spirit, and although the people made their gods in the image of creatures and man, their gods were not gods but passions and lusts, and the people were ruled by the father of passions and lusts, the manslayer, the devil.

    6. There is no other king but the one king, the heavenly consoler; although the people made their kings in the image of their brother, man, these were not real kings because the king, that is, he who rules everyone, must be wiser and juster than all others and only God is wiser and juster than everyone, while the kings had passions and lusts and the people were ruled by the father of passions and lusts, the manslayer, the devil.

    7. And the crafty kings chose from the people the strongest and the most useful to themselves and called them the masters, and they made the others the slaves of these masters, and on the earth grief, poverty, and sickness and calamity and discord were multiplied.

    8. Two peoples were distinguished by their merit, the Hebrews and the Greeks.

    9. God himself chose the Hebrews and sent Moses to them and Moses laid down for them the law which he had received from God on Mount Sinai, and he established equality among them in order that there should not be a king among them, but that they should know the one king, the heavenly God, and that the government should be in the hands of judges chosen by the will of the people.

    10. But the Hebrews elected a king, not heeding the holy elder Samuel, and God quickly showed them that they had not done well; because although David was the best of all kings in the world, even him God permitted to transgress, so that he took his neighbour's wife. This was done so that the people would understand that, however virtuous a man is, if he rules autocratically he will fall into sin. And Solomon, the wisest of men, God allowed to fall into the greatest folly— idolatry—so that the people would understand that, however wise a man may be, if he rules autocratically, he will become a fool.

    11. For* the person who says of himself: I am better than all others and wiser than all others, everyone must obey me as master and do that which my fancy wills, sins the original sin which destroyed Adam, when obeying the devil he desired to be equal to God and lost his senses; he is like unto the devil himself who desired to place himself on a level with God and fell into hell.

    12. For there is one God: He is both the king and the Lord of heaven and earth.

    13. Therefore, as soon as the Hebrews created their own kings and forgot the heavenly king, they immediately turned from the true God and bowed down before Baal and Dagon.

    14. And God chastized them: their kingdom was destroyed and all were taken prisoners by the Chaldeans.

    15. But the Greeks said: we do not desire a king; we desire to be free and equal.

    16. And the Greeks became the most enlightened people in the world because from them have come the sciences and arts as we have them now.

    17. But the Greeks knew not true freedom because although they foreswore kings they knew not the heavenly king, and they devised their own gods and thus they had no kings but they had gods; therefore they were half such as they would have been if they had had no gods and if they had known the heavenly God. Because, although they spoke much of freedom, not all were free, but only a part of the people, and the others were slaves; and so they had no kings but there were masters, which is the same as though they had many little kings.

    18. And the Lord punished them: they waged war amongst themselves and fell into bondage at the hands of the Macedonians and afterwards of the Romans.

    19. And so the Lord punished the human race: a large part of it, the most educated, fell into bondage at the hands of the Roman masters, and after into the hands of the Roman emperor.

    20. And the Roman emperor became the king of the peoples and called himself god.

    21. Then the devil rejoiced and all hell with him. And they said in hell: behold, now is our kingdom at hand; man has retreated far from God, when one man calls himself both god and king together.

    22. But then the Lord, the heavenly father, took pity on the human race and sent his Son to earth, in order to show people God, the king and master.

    23. And the Son of God came to earth in order to reveal the truth, so that the truth should make man free.

    24. And Christ taught that all men are brethren and neighbours, and must first of all love God and then one another, and the one who acquires the greatest merit with God is he who lays down his soul for his friend. And he who desires to be first must be the servant of all.

    25. And he, himself, was the example: He was the wisest and most just of men, hence a king and a master, but did not appear as an earthly king and master, but was born in a manger, lived in poverty, chose his disciples not from the illustrious families, not from the learned philosophers but from simple fishermen.

    26. And the people came to perceive the truth: then the pseudo-philosophers and the people of the Roman emperor became afraid lest truth triumph and after truth come freedom, and then indeed it would not be so easy to fool and torture the people.

    27. And they sentenced Jesus Christ, God, king and master, to death, and Jesus Christ was spat upon, buffeted, scourged, and suffered crucifixion and burial for the freedom of the human race, because they did not wish to acknowledge him king and master, having another king, Caesar, who called himself god and drank human blood.

    28. But Christ shed his own blood for the freedom of the human race and left his own blood for eternity for the faithful to nourish upon.

    29. And Christ arose on the third day and became king of heaven and earth.

    30. His disciples, the poor fishermen, spread out over the earth and preached truth and freedom.

    31. And those who accepted their word became brothers— whether they had been masters of slaves, learned philosophers or ignorant men, all became free by Christ's blood which they all accepted equally, all were enlightened in the light of the truth.

    32. And the Christians lived as brethren, everything was held in common among them and they elected elders and these elders were servants of all, because God said: whoever desires to be first must be the servant of all.

    33. Then the Roman emperors and the masters and officials and all their agents and philosophers rose against Christianity and wished to uproot the Christian faith; and Christians perished: they drowned them, hanged them, quartered them, burned them, flayed them with iron combs and created other incalculable tortures for them.

    34. And the Christian faith did not decline, but the more evil caesars and masters were, the more believers there were.

    35. Then the emperors arranged with the masters and spake thus amongst themselves: We have not yet uprooted Christianity, let us resort to craft, let us ourselves accept Christianity, let us pervert Christ's teaching so that it profit us, and we shall deceive the people.

    36. And the kings began to accept Christianity and spake: behold: it is possible to be both a king and a Christian.

    37. And the masters accepted Christianity and spake: behold: it is possible to be both a Christian and a master.

    38. And they did not understand that it is not enough to call oneself Christian, because it was said: not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord! shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

    39. And they deceived the bishops, the ecclesiastics and the wise men, and these spake: verily it is so: Christ said: render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's but unto God that which is God's; and the Apostle spake: all power is from God. Thus, God himself determined that some in this world should be masters and rich men and others beggars and slaves.

    40. But they spoke untruth: although Christ said, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, it was because Christ did not wish revolts and discords but wished that faith and freedom be propagated peacefully and lovingly; because if a Christian will render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, that is pay tribute and obey the law, then Caesar, having accepted the faith, must renounce his kingdom because he, being the first, is obliged to be a servant of all; and then there would be no Caesar but there would be one king, the Lord Jesus Christ.

    41. And although the Apostle spake: all power is from God, this does not mean that each person who had appropriated power was himself from God. Authority, organization and government must exist on the earth, and this is power, and this power is from God, but the leader and the ruler must be subordinate to the law and to the popular assembly because even Christ commanded men to be judged before the popular assemblage; and since the leader and the ruler are the first persons, they must be servants and they must do what is established, and they must not magnify themselves and dazzle with their magnificence, but they must live simply and work zealously for society because their power is from God, and they themselves are sinners and the very last of the people because they are servants of all.

    42. And this is another great lie: as if God would ordain that some should reign and wax rich while others should die in bondage and beggary, because this would not be so if they would quickly accept the gospel; the masters are obliged to free the slaves and acknowledge them as brethren and the rich must share with the poor and the poor would also become rich; so would it be if a Christian love were in their hearts, because he who loves another desires that his beloved be as well off as himself.

    43. And those who so spake and speak and pervert the world of Christ, they will be responsible on judgment day; they will say to the judge: Lord! have we not prophesied in thy name? But the Judge will say: I know ye not.

    44. With such explanations, the kings, the masters and the learned men desecrated Christian freedom.

    45. Blessing was given to all the people but first of all to the descendants of Japheth because the descendants of Shem rejected Christ through the Jews.

    46. And the tribes of the Greeks, Romans, Germans and Slavs became blessed.

    47. And the Greeks accepted the blessing and dishonoured it because they accepted the new faith but did not divest ancient man of passions and lusts; they retained both the empire and the masters and regal vanity and bondage; and God punished them: the Greek kingdom declined over a thousand years and fell under the Turkish yoke.

    48. But the Roman tribes—the Italians, French and Spanish— accepted the blessing and attained power, a new life and enlightenment; and God blessed them because they accepted the holy faith better than the Greeks: however, even they did not divest ancient man of his passions and lusts; they retained kings and masters and they invented a head of Christianity, the pope, and he imagined that he had power over the entire Christian world, and no one could judge him, but whatever he might think of was good.

    49. And the German tribe—the German people—accepted the blessing and attained power, a new life and enlightenment; and the Lord blessed them because they accepted the holy faith better than the Greeks and the Romans; and amongst them appeared Luther who taught that the Christians must live as they had lived before the time when the Christian teaching was accepted and perverted by the kings and masters, and that there should not be a head over the Christian church who is not open to judgment: because there is one head for all, Christ. But the Germans likewise did not divest ancient man of his passions and lusts because even they retained kings and masters to direct the Christian church instead of a pope and bishops.

    50. And the last idolatry was worse than the first; because kings gained supremacy not only among Germans but also in other lands, and in order to keep the people under yoke they created idols, turned the people from Christ and commanded that they worship idols and fight for them.

    51. Because their political ideas were their idols and the French, though baptized, worried less about Christ than about their national honour, as their idol was called, while the English worshipped gold and Mammon, and other nations likewise their own idols; and their kings put them to death for pieces of land, for tobacco and tea and wine and the rest became their gods. Because it was said: where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The heart of the Christian is with Jesus Christ but the heart of the idolator is with his idol. And the stomach became, as the apostle said, their god.

    52. And the heretics devised a new god, supreme over all petty little gods, and this god was called in French egoism or self-interest.

    53. And the philosophers began to exclaim: it is stupid to believe in the Son of God, there is neither paradise nor hell, all must worship egoism or self-interest, or the German Ego.

    54. It was the kings and masters who were responsible for all this, and the measure of abomination was fulfilled; the righteous Lord set his two-edged sword on the adulterous race; the French rebelled and spake: we desire not that there should be kings and masters among us, we wish to be equal and free.

    55. But this could not come to pass because freedom is where the Spirit of the Lord is, and the Spirit of God had long before this been banished from France by the kings, the marquis and the philosophers.

    56. And the French slew their king and banished their master, and they themselves began to slaughter each other and they slaughtered until they fell into worse bondage.

    57. For in them God wanted to show all people that there is no freedom without the Christian faith.

    58. And since then the Roman and German tribes are in mutiny; they again placed kings and masters over themselves, yet they shout about freedom; and they have no freedom because there is no freedom without faith.

    59. And the Slavic tribe is the younger brother of the Japheth family.

    60. It happens that the younger brother loves his father better, but receives a lesser share than the other brothers, but afterward as the older brothers waste their property while the younger saves his, then the younger rescues the older.

    61. The Slavic tribe even before the acceptance of the faith had neither kings nor masters and all were equal and there were no idols, but the Slavs worshipped one God,1 omnipotent. Thus writes a Greek historian concerning the Slavs.

    62. When the older brothers, the Greeks, Romans, Germans, became enlightened, then the Lord sent two brothers, Constantine and Methodius, to the younger brother, the Slavs; the Lord invested them with the Holy Spirit and they translated into the Slavic language the holy scriptures and determined to perform the divine service in that language, which all spoke; and this was not so among either the Romans or the Germans because they performed the divine service in Latin so that the Romans understood a little but the Germans understood nothing of what was read to them.

    63. And the Slavs quickly accepted the Christian faith, as no other people had accepted it.

    64. But the Slavs had two misfortunes—first, the discord among them and, second, they, as the younger brothers, adopted everything from the elders, the necessary and the unnecessary, not realizing that their own was better than that of their older brothers.

    65. And the Slavs accepted kings and masters from the Germans, but before this their kings had been elected leaders and did not boast before the people but sat down to dine with the simple as equals, and they themselves tilled their land; but afterward there came amongst them magnificence, vanity, the guards, the court.

    66. And there were no masters among the Slavs but there were patriarchs; the one who is older in years and who is wiser than the others besides, him they listened to at the popular assembly, but afterward there were masters among them, and the masters had slaves.

    67. And the Lord punished the Slavic tribe more cruelly than the other tribes because the Lord himself hath said: to whom more is given, from him more is demanded; and the Slavs fell captive to the foreigners: The Czechs and the Polabians to the Germans, the Serbs and the Bulgars to the Greeks and the Turks, and the Great Russians to the Tatars.

    68. And it seemed the Slavic tribe will perish because those Slavs who dwelled near the Elbe and the Baltic sea-coast were destroyed in such a way that no trace of them remained.

    69. But the Lord was not completely angered at the Slavic tribe, because the Lord planned that the scripture should be fulfilled in this tribe: The stone that the builders rejected is become the cornerstone.

    70. After the lapse of much time there took shape in the Slavic land three independent kingdoms: Poland, Lithuania and Muscovy.

    71. Poland was made up of Poles and the Poles boasted: we have freedom and equality, but they made masters of themselves, and the Polish people were foolhardy because the simple people fell into captivity, the most grievous which ever was on the earth, and the masters without regard for law hanged and killed their slaves.

    71. Muscovy was made up of Great Russians: and a great republic existed among them—the Novgorod republic, free and equal although not without masters, and Novgorod perished because even there masters appeared and the Muscovite tsar arose above all the Great Russians, and he arose by bowing down to the Tatars, and he kissed the feet of Khan, the Tatar Mussulman, in order that he might aid him in holding the Great Russian Christian people in fiendish captivity.

    73. And the Great Russian people lost their senses and fell into idolatry because they called the tsar the earthly god and everything the tsar said they considered to be good, so that when tsar Ivan in Novgorod strangled and drowned tens of thousands of people a day, the chroniclers relating this called him Christ-loving.

    74. And Lithuania united with Poland and in Lithuania there were Lithuanians and Ukraine belonged to Lithuania.

    75. And Ukraine united with Poland as a sister with a sister, as one Slavic people with another Slavic people, indivisible and separate in the image of the Trinity, divine, indivisible, and separate as in the future all Slavic people will be united amongst themselves.

    76. Ukraine loved neither the tsar nor the Polish lord and established a Cossack Host amongst themselves, i.e., a brotherhood in which each -upon entering was a brother of the others—whether he had before been a master or a slave, provided that he was a Christian; and the Cossacks were all equal amongst themselves, and officials were elected at the assembly and they had to serve all according to the word of Christ, because they accepted the duty as compulsory, as an obligation, and there was no sort of seignorial majesty and title among the Cossacks.

    77. And they resolved to preserve their purity, therefore the old chroniclers say of the Cossacks: thievery and fornication are never named among them.

    78. And the Cossack Host decided to guard the holy faith and free their neighbours from captivity. The Hetman Svyrgovsky2 moved to defend Wallachia and the Cossacks did not take the platter with the gold pieces which were offered to them in thankfulness for their services; they did not take them because they had shed their blood for the faith and for their neighbours; they served God and not the golden calf. And Sahaidachny3 ravaged Kaffa and liberated there several thousand slaves from the underground prisons.

    79. And there were many knights who acted thus; their exploits are not inscribed in the books of this world but are written in heaven, because the prayers of those whom they had freed from captivity interceded for them before God.

    80. And day after day the Cossack Host grew and multiplied i soon all people in Ukraine would have become Cossacks, i.e., free i equal, and there would have been neither a tsar nor a Polish lord ?r Ukraine, but God alone, and as it would be in Ukraine, so it would be in Poland and then also in the other Slavic lands.

    81. For Ukraine did not wish to follow in the path of the nations, t held to the law of God; and each foreigner coming to Ukraine was azed because in no other country of the world did they so sincerely ty to God, nowhere else did man so love his wife and the children respect their parents.

    82. And when the popes and Jesuits wished to subordinate raine forcibly to their authority in order that the Ukrainian Chris-is might believe that all that the pope says is true and equitable, then Jkraine there appeared brotherhoods such as there were among the t Christians; and each person on enrolling in the brotherhood, ether he had been a master or a slave, was called a brother. And this s so that all might see that in Ukraine the ancient true faith remained that in Ukraine there were no idols and for this reason no types of esies had appeared there.

    83. But the masters perceived that the Cossack Host was grow-and soon all people would become Cossacks, i.e., free, and they made their slaves to join the Cossack Host and they wished to beat simple people down to join the Cossack Host and they wished to t the simple people down as cattle, so that there should be no feeling :hem, no sense, and the masters began to strip their slaves; they ided them to the Jews, to such torture the likes of which they had icted only on the first Christians; they flayed the skin from living »ple, boiled children in cauldrons, forced mothers to suckle dogs.

    84. And the masters wished to make of the people a tree or a tie, and they did not allow them to go to church; they forbade them :hristen their children, to be married, to accept the sacraments, to y the dead, and all this in order that the simple people should lose n their human form, and then it would be easier to manage them.

    85. And the masters began to torture and annihilate the Cos-k Host because such a free Christian brotherhood hindered the mas-i much.

    86. But it did not come to pass as the masters thought; because Cossack Host rebelled and all the people rose up with them and troyed and drove out the masters, and Ukraine became a Cossack i, i.e., free, because all were equal and free—but not for long.

    87. And Ukraine wanted again to live fraternally with Poland, [visibly and separately, but Poland in no way wished to renounce nobility.

    88. Then Ukraine joined Muscovy4 and united with her as one ric people with another Slavic people, indivisible and separate in the image of the Trinity, divine, indivisible and separate as in the future all the Slavic people will be united amongst themselves.

    89. But Ukraine soon perceived that she had fallen into captivity; because of her simplicity she had not realized what the Muscovite tsar signifies and that the Muscovite tsar meant the same as an idol and a torturer.

    90. And Ukraine seceded from Muscovy and did not know, the poor one, where to shelter herself.

    91. For she loved both the Poles and the Great Russians as her own brothers and did not desire to break up the brotherhood, but wished that all should live together, united as one Slavic people with another, and that these two should unite with the third and that there should be three Republics in one union, indivisible and separate in the image of the Holy Trinity, indivisible and separate as all the Slavic people in the future will unite amongst themselves.

    92. But neither Liakhy5 nor the Great Russians understood this. And the Polish lords and the Muscovite sovereign saw that they could do nothing with Ukraine and they said amongst themselves: Ukraine will not be for the Polish lord nor the Muscovite tsar; we will sunder her in two parts along the course of the Dnieper which divides her in half; the left bank will belong to the Muscovite tsar for profit and the right bank will belong to the Polish lords for pillage.6

    93. And Ukraine fought against this for about fifty years: this was the most holy and most glorious war for freedom, one to which there is probably nothing similar in history, and the partition of Ukraine is the most odious affair one can find in history.

    94. Ukraine lost strength; and the Poles forced the Cossack Host from the right bank of the Dnieper and the Polish lords reigned over poverty-stricken remnants of a free people.

    95. And on the left bank the Cossack Host held on longer but hour by hour they succumbed to the fiendish captivity of the Moscow tsar and afterwards of the Petersburg emperor, because the last Moscow tsar and the first Petersburg emperor7 destroyed hundreds of thousands in the canals and built for himself a capital on their bones.

    96. And the German tsarina Catherine [II], a universal profligate, atheist, husband slayer, ended the Cossack Host and freedom because having selected those who were the starshyna6 in Ukraine, she allotted them nobility and lands and she gave them the free brethren in yoke; she made some masters and others slaves.

    97. And Ukraine was destroyed. But it only seemed to be so.

    98. She was not destroyed; because she wished to know neither a tsar nor a master, and although a tsar was over her he was a foreigner, and although there were nobles they were foreign, and although these degenerates were of Ukrainian blood they did not yet soil the Ukrainian language with their foul mouths and they did not call themselves Ukrainians; but the true Ukrainian—whether of simple origin or noble—must love neither a tsar nor a master but he must love and be mindful of one God, Jesus Christ, the king and master of heaven and earth. Thus it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be.

    99. And the Slavic people, although they endured and endure captivity, had not themselves created the captivity because the tsar and nobility are not an invention of the Slavic spirit but of the German and the Tatar. And now, although there is a despot-tsar in Russia, he is not a Slav, but a German, and his officials are German, hence, although there are nobles in Russia they soon turn into Germans or Frenchmen while the true Slav loves neither the tsar nor the lord, but he loves and is mindful of one God, Jesus Christ, king of heaven and earth. Thus it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be.

    100. Ukraine lies in the grave but did not die.

    101. For her voice which called all the Slavic peoples to freedom and brotherhood was heard throughout the Slavic world. And this voice of Ukraine resounded in Poland, when on the third of May9 the Poles decided that there should be no masters among them, that all were equal in the republic, and this Ukraine had desired already one hundred and twenty years earlier.

    102. And they did not allow Poland to do this; they ravaged Poland as before they had ravaged Ukraine.

    103. And Poland deserved this because she had not heeded Ukraine and had destroyed her own sister.

    104. But Poland will not perish because she will be awakened by Ukraine, who does not remember evil arid loves her own sister as though nothing had occurred between them.

    105. And the voice of Ukraine resounded in Muscovy when after the death of tsar Alexander [I] the Russians wanted to banish the tsar and destroy the nobility, to found a republic and unite all the Slavs with it in the image of the Trinity, indivisible and separate;10 and this Ukraine had desired and striven for, for almost two hundred years before this.

    106. And the despot did not allow this: some ended their lives on the gallows, others were tortured in mines, and still others were handed over to be slaughtered by the Circassians.

    107. And the despot rules over three Slavic peoples; he rules them by using Germans, he poisons, cripples, destroys the good Slavic nature, but it will avail him nought.

    108. Because the voice of Ukraine was not stilled. Ukraine will rise from her grave and again will call to her brother Slavs, and they will hear her call and the Slavic peoples will rise and there will remain neither tsar, nor tsarevich, nor tsarevna, nor prince, nor count, nor duke, nor Excellency, nor Highness, nor lord, nor boyar, nor peasant, nor serf, neither in Great Russia, nor in Poland, nor in Ukraine, nor in Czechia, nor among the Khorutans,11 nor among the Serbs, nor among the Bulgars.

    109. And Ukraine will be an independent Republic in the Slavic Union. Then all the peoples, pointing to that place on the map where Ukraine will be delineated, will say: behold, the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.

    Notes to Appendix 3

    1. Probably Svarog. Procopius states that the Antes and the Slovenes worshipped Svarog, god of heaven.

    2. Ivan Svyrgovsky was a Cossack Hetman of the sixteenth century.

    3. Sahaidachny, a Cossack Hetman, captured the city of Kaffa in 1616.

    4. Bohdan Khmelnytsky, after a series of wars with Poland, accepted Muscovite intervention and the offer of a protectorate over Ukraine. Accordingly, in 1654, at Pereiaslav, the Cossacks took an oath of loyalty to the tsar. Khmelnytsky died in 1657 aware that what was intended as an alliance on his part had become a territorial acquisition on the tsar's part.

    5. Poles.

    6. The Left-Bank Ukraine, under Ivan Briukhovetsky, was subordinated to Moscow; the Right-Bank Ukraine, under Pavlo Teteria, was under the protection of Poland. After a series of incursions by both sides, the Right-Bank Ukraine succeeded in gaining independence under Hetman Petro Doro-shenko. He defeated Briukhovetsky and united both banks in 1668.

    7. Peter the Great.

    8. Elected elders.

    9. On May 3,1791, the Polish Sejm accepted a new constitution under which the monarchy became hereditary, the liberum veto was abolished, the king's acts were to have the approval of his council, and his ministers were to be responsible to the Sejm.

    10. The reference is to the Decembrist uprising of 1825.

    11. Slovenes.


    Appeal to Brother Ukrainians

    We offer these thoughts to your eyes and request a response from rou as to whether you think them good:

    1. We hold that all the Slavs should unite.

    2. They should do so in such a way that each people would form ts own republic and should govern itself like the others, so that each >eople would have its own language, literature and society. These peo->les, in our view, are: the Russians, the Ukrainians, the Poles, the Izechs, the Slovaks, the Slovenes, the Illyro-Serbians and the Julgarians.

    3. There should be one Slavic sejm or rada, where deputies from 11 the republics would gather and would discuss and decide on matters >ertaining to the entire Slavic union.

    4. Each republic should have a ruler, elected for several years, nd the union should have a ruler elected for several years.

    5. Equality and freedom should prevail in each republic. There hould be no social classes.

    6. Deputies and officials should be elected by the people not ccording to their birth or wealth, but according to their intelligence nd education.

    7. The Christian faith should be the foundation of law and so-iety in the whole union and in each republic.

    This, our brother Ukrainians on both sides of the Dnieper, we ffer for your consideration. Read it carefully and let everyone ponder n how it should be achieved and perfected. It is said that there are as lany wisdoms as there are heads. When you start thinking on the latter, when the time comes to discuss it, God will give you under-:anding.


    Appeal to Brother Great Russians and Poles

    This is addressed to you by Ukraine, your mendicant sister, whom you dismembered, but who does not call attention to this evil, who feels for your misfortunes and is ready to shed the blood of her children for your freedom. Read this fraternal epistle, consider the grave matter of your salvation, rise from your sleep, cleanse from your hearts your hatred for one another, inflamed by tsars and lords to the detriment of your freedom, be mortified by the yoke which burdens your backs, be ashamed of your own depravity, curse the sacrilegious names of the tsars and the lords of this world, purge from your minds the spirit of unbelief—the legacy of German and Romance tribes, and the spirit of impenitence, inspired by the Tatars, clothe yourselves in that love of humanity peculiar to the Slavs and also remember your brothers, languishing in silken German fetters and in Turkish claws and let this be the goal of your life and activity: the Slavic Union, universal equality, brotherhood, peace and the love of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Amen!


    Bilozersky's Note

    [Source: "Zapyska Vasylia Bilozerskoho," Ukraina, 1 (1914)]

    The Christian religion offered to the world a new moral spirit that had not existed previously. The Saviour revealed to mankind love, peace, and freedom, equality for all and the brotherhood of nations— new objectives, revealed to the people so that, through them, the great idea of human unity might be realized. But did the nations receive this blessing? Did they feel the common good brought into their lives by the rays of God's will? How could it be otherwise? Nations, like wilting flowers, were thirsty for the heavenly dew that would alleviate their sufferings.

    Those in whose hands rests the power to fulfill heavenly truth— did they fulfill the hopes of the subject peoples? Called to brotherly love and freedom—did they try to affirm those qualities between brethren?

    Eighteen centuries have passed and we do not see it. Nations still suffer from falsehood, they are still oppressed. Lucky are those whose awareness of their nationality is so strong and firm that no external power is in a position to subdue their spiritual strength. Then that nation will preserve its independence and free development, and this is the goal at which each nation should aim; woe to those bearing the yoke!

    Hardly any other people has suffered greater oppression from anomalous and pagan forms of government than the Slavs who, according to a German, would be admired by the entire world if their happiness and fate were commensurate with their virtues. Even now an order ruinous to the Slavic spirit continues, but the Slavs have awakened to a new life—independent and free. But this awakening has revealed to them both the new life and the pitiful conditions that hinder their development: all are oppressed by an autocratic arbitrariness. Neither political independence nor the free expression of thoughts and feelings, not even language itself, finds the protection of the law: everything is persecuted, everything is suppressed by personal arbitrariness.

    Our dear Ukraine, a country that through bitter sufferings in the cause of truth has earned everlasting esteem, had found herself in terrible circumstances. Annexed [to Russia] on the basis of her own laws, she is suffering a great injustice. Her rights are forgotten, and now, not as a sister nation of the same faith, but as a slave, she must endure the most grievous lot of all peoples. Her fate and her future are on the scales of God. But if the present conditions continue for a long time, when nothing Ukrainian will be esteemed, when a foreign yoke is thrown on us, when "we, O God, feel like foreigners in our forefathers' land, in our own fatherland," then Ukraine will lose her ancient national dignity and become a new Polonized Ukraine (nedoliashka). And will the will of God be fulfilled through this? Do we, with our lives, deserve such an abysmal fate? No, but we will deserve it if we remain inactive, if we look on quietly while, before our very eyes, the greatest gift of God—a nation's life (narodnaia zhizn) with the spirit, ideas and goals to which we should aspire—is killed.

    "To love and protect more than life itself, what is one's own, to spare and not oppress what is not one's own—this is the sacred duty of every man and every nation which has reached moral awareness of self and destiny." As faithful sons of their native land, inspired by a desire to do good things for it, and realizing that this is only possible by fulfilling the testament of our Divine Saviour, we must strive for the realization therein of God's truth, for the enthronement within it of freedom, bro.therly love and popular well-being, the independent development of that idea which was incorporated by the Creator himself into the character of our people.

    Besides, it is clear that it [our native land] cannot exist separately, that it will be located between various fires, it will be pressed [on all sides] and will suffer the sorrowful fate of the Poles. The only means offering itself to [our] intelligence and approved by [our] hearts for the return of the rights of the people may be found in a union of the Slavic tribes into one family, protected by the law, love and freedom of all. With the intertwined hands of friendship, they will defend themselves against any barbarian, and will surrender their rights in order to develop in their lives the idea of a Christian community, to revive a life that has lost the most fundamental social function—religion—and will appear once more in Europe with new blessings bestowed upon it.

    As it was before, their task was to spread a peaceful agricultural civilization, and a philanthropic moral notion; as before, to assuage the customs of warlike nations. Now it will soften the souls of nations troubled by calamities by solving social problems, by bringing back the good things of life, shown to us by our Saviour.

    All our activities should strive towards this end—and all our wishes too, and just as a society must be the germ of any change by working out a specific idea, so must we construct [our] society on the following foundations:

    1. Since the goal of the society will be the return to the Slavic peoples of their independence (samostoiatelnost) and moral freedom, each member should try to spread unerring ideas about freedom, based on Christian teaching and on the people's law.

    2. Since this freedom is achievable for us and other subjugated peoples only through the union of the Slavs into a single state, based on respect for the nationality (narodnost) of each, members should: a. spread knowledge about the Slavs and of the right of each tribe to independence; b. spread love for the Slavs and their nationality, attempting to destroy by every means all kinds of prejudices existing between tribes; c. disseminate documents that will awaken a national spirit and an awareness of a common brotherhood.

    3. If a member of the society should note tendencies such as these in a well-intentioned person he may extend membership to him. While doing so care should be taken to reveal the existence of the society only to those who, aware of its importance, have pure Christian promptings in their souls, as well as an unsuspicious conscience.

    4. Try to avoid naming the names of people admitted to the society.

    5. Try to influence the minds of young people and women towards the society's goals and to assist with every means those who may be useful in preparing the society for the new order that may follow. It is necessary to influence women's minds in order to educate them in the spirit of the Slavic ideas.

    6. Strive for specific goals with firmness, exemplariness, carefulness and calmness, and on no account show fear or give ordinary men any reason to think that what may be said and done is contrary to the established order.

    7. It is necessary to come close to the common people {narod), to care about their education and well-being and to instill in them a hope of changing the established order.

    8. It is necessary to undermine, by every means, the unjust laws of the aristocracy and give greater prominence to those who do not belong to it, or who have acted in accordance with democratic laws.

    9. Inasmuch as the motives for our society are based on Christian love and freedom, it is necessary that the achievement of equality and the dignity of human rights should be accomplished in a spirit of humility and peace. That is why our main goals must be the spread of education and of Christian ideas.

    10. Those members of the society who know each other should attempt (if not all, then at least some of them) to convene somewhere at least once a year for mutual discussion and an accounting of their activities.

    11. Since the goal of the society is based on Christian love and the most benevolent motives, containing nothing egoistic or lordly, but on the contrary, affirming the restoration of popular rights and the destruction of everything that is opposed to human dignity, every member should strive to realize the Slavic idea throughout his life, to use all the means at his disposal for serving mankind and his nation and be ready as well to suffer for a just cause.

    Examples of Christian self-sacrifice and self-denial should teach and strengthen him, hope in God should accompany him, love for his people should comfort him.

    Our empty ... is waiting for us
    Because the time of the Slavic era has arrived.1

    Unanimity and unwavering mutual love should unite us. Let this thought make us happy: through our efforts the time will come when the Slavs, discord forgotten, will unite in one great family, faithful to God and a brotherly union, and the blessings, peace and freedom bequeathed by our Saviour will then flourish.

    Before the tribunal of nations the Slavs will appear with honour and glory and will boldly point to the fruits of their independent existence, if they have striven for and desired it.

    No other Slavic tribe has such a duty to strive for independence and inspire their remaining brethren as we Ukrainians. In our past lives we can see the results and examples of slavery and of a continuous struggle for the freedom of our rights and for the Christian faith. If we, cognizant of the important deeds of our forefathers, remain quiet witnesses of untruth, if we do not learn from the example of nations that have perished, if we do not protect our heritage, then, with justice, we shall meet a similar fate. No, we shall hold fast to our national treasure-house and preserve it for a better future.

    Note to Appendix 6

    1. An incomplete and possibly inaccurate quotation from the Serbian (G. L.).


    Excerpts1 from the Report by Count A. F. Orlov

    The Importance of the Case, as It Appeared after Preliminary Testimony. The testimony, received at the beginning and in the course of the further unfolding of the investigation, presented the Ukraino-Slavic Society in a very important light, and many circumstances led to the belief that the Society had as a goal the creation of a secret, ill-intentioned affair, for at Hulak's [apartment] a statute of the Society of Saints Cyril and Methodius was found. From its rules it is evident that the Ukraino-Slavists contemplated, albeit by peaceful means, primarily through the spread of education, to unite all the Slavic tribes and to establish among them a popular, representational government. Some copies of manuscripts called "God's Law" and "Podniestrianka" were found, no longer claiming peaceful intentions, but filled with revolutionary and communist rules, with seditious invocations to the Slavic tribes. Shev-chenko's poems, insolent and seditious to the highest degree, were found, as well as manuscripts, more or less similar to the ones previously mentioned. The very letters of the arrested persons, even when dealing with scholarly or literary subjects, were obscured by ambiguous, high-flown and, in general, very dubious expressions. At the same time, Petrov and Andruzsky in their depositions explained the Ukraino-Slavic Society as a purely revolutionary affair. The former maintained that Hulak contemplated preparing and later awakening the Slavic tribes by various means to an uprising against the supreme authorities. He said that while doing so the Society would act in a peace-loving way towards the Most August Household, but if the necessity arose, the tsar's family would have to be sacrificed.

    The Findings of the Investigation. Although Hulak showed unusual stubbornness and, without revealing anything, repeated one thing— that he was bound by the word of honour he had given to someone— the others (Bilozersky and, later, Kostomarov) revealed their crimes so [107] openly that there is no reason to doubt that they would hide anything they knew. In addition, others have more or less explained the affair, so that it can be regarded as completely revealed. No matter how serious, in many respects, is the guilt of the persons concerned, the actual political harm, fortunately, has not developed to the degree it appeared to have in the preliminary testimonies. Denunciations and preliminary testimonies, as always happens, exaggerated the importance of the case, which has turned out to be less dangerous.

    Ukraino-Slavic Society. A Ukraino-Slavic Society did exist, but only for a few months at the end of 1845 and the beginning of 1846—involving three persons—Hulak, Bilozersky and Kostomarov. Some called it the Society of Saints Cyril and Methodius and wore rings bearing these saints' names. It is difficult to ascertain who first thought of the society, since all were dedicated in equal measure to Slavic ideas, stimulating each other to some activity. The idea of naming the society after Saints Cyril and Methodius and wearing rings with the saints' images came from Kostomarov.

    According to Bilozersky and Kostomarov the goal of the society was the unification of the Slavic tribes. However, they wished to unite them under the scepter of Your Imperial Majesty. Without referring to the present government of Russia, they only wanted those Slavic tribes uniting with us to be governed in accordance with the example provided by the Kingdom of Poland. It seemed to them that Your Majesty alone, through the fortitude of your spirit, could accomplish this great task. But, doubtful whether Your Majesty, busy with the internal well-being of the state, would agree to participate in this plan, they tried to achieve this Slavic unity by their own means.

    These means were limited to the following measures: the enthusiasm of the Slavic tribes for the preservation of their separate nationalities, the expunging of everything foreign from their customs, the abolition of enmity and the establishment of understanding between them by persuading them to profess one orthodox faith, and by the introduction of schools and the publication of books for the common people. They held that the Slavic tribes would thus be convinced ultimately to unite peacefully into one whole. But the goal of the Ukraino-Slavists, through these means, would not be achieved for hundreds or thousands of years (these were their own words). Soon Hulak, Kostomarov and Bilozersky realized that their theoretical assumptions did not accord with the practical course of events and that their ideas were only scholars' dreams. Therefore, in the middle of 1846, they ceased their activities, stopped calling their circle a society, and decided to apply themselves to the study of history and Slavic languages—as scholarly pursuits, without any political aim. In addition, the society was not revived because soon after that Bilozersky left for a post in Poltava and in January, 1847, Hulak left for St. Petersburg.

    Persons Guilty of Crimes, Apart from the Ukraino-Slavic Society. Two of these, Shevchenko and Kulish, appeared not to belong to the Ukraino-Slavic Society. But they are guilty because of their own activities. Instead of eternally feeling reverence for persons of the Most August Family, who bought him out of the condition of serfhood, Shevchenko wrote poems in the Little Russian language of a most seditious nature. In them he sometimes lamented the alleged enslavement and misfortune of Ukraine, sometimes proclaimed the glory of the Hetman rule and the former Cossack freedom, and sometimes with incredible insolence poured forth calumny and bile on the persons of the Imperial Household, thus forgetting his own benefactors. In addition, because anything forbidden entices young people and those of weak character, Shevchenko acquired among his friends the reputation of a great Little Russian writer and therefore his poems are doubly harmful and dangerous. Poems such as these may serve to sow and nurture in Little Russia ideas of the imaginary bliss of the era of the Hetmans, a desire to bring back these times and the possibility of Ukraine's existence as a separate state.

    Judging by the extraordinary respect accorded to Shevchenko and his poems by the Ukraino-Slavists, it seemed at first possible that he might be if not a participant then an instrument, which could be used in their plans. But on the one hand, these plans were not as important as they at first appeared, and on the other hand, Shevchenko had begun to write his seditious works as early as 1837, when Slavic ideas had not captivated the Kievan scholars. The entire investigation shows that Shevchenko did not belong to the Ukraino-Slavic Society and acted disparately, enamoured as he was of his own depravity. Nonetheless, because of his rebellious spirit and boundless insolence, he must be regarded as one of the main criminals.

    Kulish's guilt, although he did not belong to the Ukraino-Slavic Society either, is in some measure similar to Shevchenko's crime. Loving Little Russia, his native land, fiercely, in his published books he enthusiastically described the spirit of the Cossacks, the Haidamak raids, depicting them in knightly terms, and represented the history of his people as the most famous of all, calling its glory universal, citing Ukrainian songs in which a love of freedom is expressed, and hinting that this spirit had not grown cold among the Little Russians. He described the decrees of the Emperor Peter I and those who received them as the oppression and subjugation of people's rights. Kulish's books could produce almost the same impression of Little Russians as Shevchenko's poems, particularly because they were written for older children. The difference between them is that Kulish always expressed his views politely and, carried away by love for his native land, did not realize that his ideas might be received or interpreted badly. When it was pointed out to Kulish that passages in his books are ambiguous, he saw with horror that his thoughts could indeed bring about damaging consequences. Kulish fully understands that no matter how much he loves his native land, Ukraine, he is in duty bound to be even more devoted to his fatherland—Russia. He assures us that he never thought otherwise, that by expressing his love for his native land he never thought of disturbing or wavering in his loyalty to the throne of Your Imperial Majesty.

    General Conclusions. The review of all these circumstances leads to the following conclusions: The Ukraino-Slavic Society was no more than a scholarly delirium of three young people. Its founders were Hu-lak, Bilozersky and Kostomarov who, as scholars, were, of course, in no position to involve in their society either the military or the common people, or to bring about an uprising. But they could have caused slow and more dangerous damage. As educators of youth they had an opportunity to sow depravity among the rising generation and thus prepare future disorders. Fortunately, the evil has not borne fruit; in part it destroyed itself, and the remainder was averted by government measures.

    The investigation was carried out with strict severity and one can be sure that it was exhaustive. No traces of the Ukraino-Slavic Society were left and, with the arrest of Shevchenko and Kulish, the most active Ukrainophiles have been contained, although the same cannot be said of the Slavophiles, of whom a separate report will be submitted (for the present case does not and should not relate to the Slavophiles).

    As far as the persons involved in the case of the Ukraino-Slavic Society are concerned, it would be more convenient to sentence them without a court trial, without keeping the decision on the case secret, so that everyone may know the fate that overtook those who preoccupied themselves with Slavdom in a spirit contrary to our government and so that other Slavophiles may be averted from a similar tendency.

    Note to Appendix 7

    1. "Doklad grafa A. F. Orlova," Russky arkhiv, 2, 7 (1892): 334-59. The beginning and the end of the report, written on May 26,1847, giving personal data about the defendants and their sentences are omitted here. Some parts of the report have been reprinted in Soviet publications. Usually these deal with Shevchenko. In a recent book, Taras Shevchenko; dokumenty ta material)) do biohrafii (Kiev, 1982), one excerpt, dealing with Shevchenko, has been deliberately forged. In the section where Orlov describes Shevchenko and Kulish, a crucial sentence beginning the section on Kulish has been omitted, and Or-lov's view of Kulish has been presented as his view of Shevchenko (p. 130). A blatant forgery such as this reveals Soviet reluctance to bring to light documentary sources concerning the Brotherhood (G. L.).


    Bahalii, D. Shevchenko i kyrylo-metodiivtsi (Kharkiv: Derzhavne vydavnytstvo

    Ukrainy, 1925). Chyzhevsky, D. Narysy z istorii filosofii na Ukraini (Prague: Ukrainsky hromadsky vydavnychy fond, 1931).

    Golabek, J. Bractwo Sw. Cyryla i Metodego w Kijowie (Warsaw, 1936).

    Handelsman, M. Ukrainska polityka ks. Mama Czartoryskiego przed wojnq krymskq (Warsaw: Pratsi ukrainskoho naukovoho instytutu Vol. XXXV, 1936).

    Hrushevsky, M., ed. "Materialy do istorii Kyrylo-Metodiivskoho bratstva," Zbirnyk pamiaty Tarasa Shevchenko (Kiev, 1915), pp. 1-157.

    ----------------"Kostomarov i novitnia Ukraina," Ukraina, 3 (1925): 3-20.

    Hurevych, Z. Moloda Ukraina. Do visimdesiatykh rokovyn Kyrylo-Metodiivskoho

    Bratstva (Kharkiv: Derzhavne vydavnytstvo Ukrainy, 1928). "Iz istorii "Obshchestva sv. Kirila i Mefodiia" 1847," Byloe, 2 (1906): 66-68.

    Kostomarov, N. Avtobiografiia (Moscow: Literaturnoe nasledie, 1922).

    Lemberg, H. Die nationale Gedankenwelt der Dekabristen (Koln-Graz: Bohlau Ver- lag, 1963).

    Luciani, G. Le livre de la genese du peuple ukrainien (Paris: Institut d'etudes slaves de l'Universite de Paris, 1956).

    Luckyj, G. Between Gogol' and Sevcenko (Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1971).

    ----------------Panteleimon Kulish, a Sketch of His Life and Times, East European Monographs (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983).

    Markovsky, M. "Shevchenko v Kyrylo-Metodiivskomu bratstvi," Zapysky istorychno-filolohichnoho viddilu Ukrainskoi Akademii Nauk, 4 (1923): 49-57.

    Mazour, A. The First Russian Revolution, 1825, The Decembrist Movement (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1937).

    Miiakovsky, V. "Liudy sorokovykh rokiv; Kyrylo-metodiivtsi v yikh lystuvanni," Za sto lit, 2 (1928): 33-98.

    Mijakovskyj, V. Unpublished and Forgotten Writings (New York: The Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the United States, 1984).

    Novytsky,M. "Shevchenko vprotsesi 1847 r. iyohopapery," Ukraina, 1-2(1925): 51-99.

    Ohloblyn, O. Liudy staroi Ukrainy (Munich: Dniprova khvylia, 1959).

    Papazian, D. "Nicholas Ivanovich Kostomarov; Russian Historian, Ukrainian Nationalist, Slavic Federalist," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (University of Michigan, 1966).

    Pelech, O. "Toward a Historical Sociology of the Ukrainian Ideologues in the Russian Empire of the 1830s and 1840s," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Princeton, 1976).

    "Priznanie N. I. Kostomarova v III otdelenii," Byloe, 8 (1907): 200-28.

    Raeff, M. The Decembrist Movement (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966).

    Saunders, D. The Ukrainian Impact on Russian Culture: 1750-1850 (Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 1985).

    Semevsky, V. "Kirillo-Mefodievskoe obshchestvo, 1846-1847," Russkoe bogatstvo, 5 (1911): 98-127; 6 (1911): 39-67.

    Serhienko, H. T H. Shevchenko i kyrylo-mefodievske tovarystvo (Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1983).

    Shevchenko, T. Povne zibrannia tvoriv v shesty tomakh (Kiev: Vydavnytstvo Akademii Nauk URSR, 1963-64).

    Sydoruk, J. P. The Ideology of Cyrillo-Methodians and Its Origin (Winnipeg: Slavistica, 1954).

    Thaden, E. C. Russia since 1801: The Making of a New Society (New York: John Wiley, 1971).

    Vozniak, M. Kyrylo-metodiivske bratstvo (Lviv: Fond Uchitesia braty moi, 1921).

    Walicki, A. A History of Russian Thought (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1979).

    ------------------Philosophy and Romantic Nationalism: The Case of Poland (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982).

    Wandycz, P. S. The Lands of Partitioned Poland, 1795-1918 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1974).

    Yanivsky, B. (Mijakovskyj). Kostomarov's Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People (New York: Research Program on the USSR, 1954).

    Yefremov, S. "Bilia pochatkiv ukrainstva," Ukraina, 1-2 (1924): 88-96.

    Zaionchkovsky, P. Kirillo-Mefodievskoe obshchestvo (Moscow: Izdatelstvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1959).

    Zaitsev, P., ed. "Knyhy bytiia ukrainskoho narodu," Nashe mynule, 1 (1918): 7-35.


    Academy of Fine Arts, 22, 23
    Achilles, 36, 37
    Alexander I, 7, 19
    Alexander II, 74
    Alexander the Great, 36
    Andruzsky, Yury, 25, 52, 66
    arrest of, 58
    exile of, 75
    sentencing of, 67
    testimony of,.38, 61-63

    Annenkov, P., 77
    Antonovych, Volodymyr, 79, 81
    Apostol, Danylo, 9
    Appeal to Brother Russians and Poles, 45, 51-53, 64
    Appeal to Brother Ukrainians, 45, 51, 58, 64
    Ashanin, 58
    Austria, 46, 79 See also Galicia
    Avsenev, Petro, 40
    Azerbaidzhan, 74
    Bakumovka, 9
    Balmen, Yakiv de, 33, 60
    Bantysh-Kamensky, Dmytro, 31
    Baryshpil, 8
    Baturyn, 4
    Belinsky, Vissarion, 23, 77
    Belorussians, 7, 45
    Berlin, 5
    Bibikov, 20, 58
    Bible, 22, 33, 47, 76, 78
    Bielina-Kedrzycki, Juljan, 38, 39
    Bila Tserkva, 6, 7
    Bilozerska, N., 46
    Bilozersky, Vasyl, 20, 24, 32, 34, 81
    in Andruzsky's testimony, 62
    arrest of, 58
    exile of, 74
    in Kostomarov's testimony, 60, 61
    in Kulish's testimony, 64
    note of, 39, 45, 53
    in Orlov's report, 68
    participation in Brotherhood of, 34-36, 40, 46, 47
    sentencing of, 67
    testimony of, 61, 62
    Bobrowski, Tadeusz, 20
    Bodiansky, Osyp, 30
    Bohemia, 33, 79
    Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People, 34, 40, 58

    contents of, 47-51
    in Kostomarov's testimony, 60, 61
    Borovykovsky, Levko, 10
    Borysov, Andriy, 5, S
    Borysov, Petro, 5, 8
    Borzna, 24, 75
    Bratslav, 4 Brest, 17
    Briullov, Karl, 22, 23
    Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius, 1, 3, 4,15, 33, 34

    by-laws of, 40, 45-47, 61
    existence of, 40
    formation of, 17, 32, 34
    ideology of, 2, 3, 50
    program of, 45-53
    rules of, 40, 45-47
    See also individual members Brotherhood of St. Stanislas, 46
    Bruggen, O., 10
    Bulgarians, 45, 51
    Bushen, 58
    By-laws, 40, 45-47, 61
    Byron, 31
    Catherine II, 4, 5, 33, 48, 79
    Catholicism, 32
    Caucasus, 33, 74-77
    Central Rada, 81
    Chaadaev, Peter, 30
    Chepa, A., 9
    Cherkasy, 76
    Chernihiv, 4, 6, 7, 20, 75
    Chernyshev, Prince, 66
    Chernyshevsky, N., 74
    Chief Rules of the Society, 45-47
    Christ, 45, 47-49, 51
    Christianity, 37, 78, 80
    in Appeal to Brother Russians and Poles, 51
    in Appeal to Brother Ukrainians, 51
    in Bilozersky's note, 53
    in Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People, 47-49
    of brethren, 22, 25, 32-34, 37, 78
    in by-laws, 45
    in rules, 46
    Christian mysticism, 40
    Chuikevych, P., 64
    Chyhyryn, 4, 8
    Chyzhevsky, Dmytro, 50
    Chyzhov, 58
    College de France, 25, 31
    Constantine, 48 Cossack Host, 4,19, 48
    Cossacks, 4, 29, 33, 81
    brethren as descendants of, 15, 20,22
    history of, 5, 21, 30, 49
    Crimea, 74
    Cyrilo-Methodians, see Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius Czechs, 18, 30-32, 45, 80
    Decembrists, 5, 6, 8-11,15, 30
    uprising by, 5, 7, 8, 15, 58
    Dnieper, 4, 51, 58
    Dolega-Chodakowski, Zorian, 18, 19,31
    Dontsov, Dmytro, 81, 82
    Doroshenko, 19
    Dorpat, 19, 20
    Drahomanov, Mykhailo, 8, 81
    Drahomanov, Yakiv, 8
    Dubelt, General, 58, 65, 66, 73, 75
    Dubno, 29
    dumy, 10, 79
    Ems ukaz, 74
    Engelhardt, Pavel, 22
    Enlightenment, 16, 29, 30, 78, 79
    Estonia, see Dorpat Euripides, 74
    Fielding, Henry, 20
    France, 62
    Freemasons, 5, 29, 79
    See also Masons French, 18, 47, 48
    French Revolution, 50, 61
    Galicia, 46, 76, 77, 80, 81
    Germans, 7,19
    in the Appeal to Brother Russians and Poles, 51
    in the Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People, 47, 48
    philosophy of, 18, 30
    Germany, 79
    glasnost', 2
    God's Law, see Books of the Genesis
    of the Ukrainian People
    Gogol, Nikolai, 11, 32, 76
    Goldsmith, Oliver, 20
    Grabowski, Michal, 21
    Great Russia, 67
    Great Russians, 6, 48
    Greece, 30
    Greeks, 31, 35, 47
    Gustav Adolf, 19
    Haidamaks, 22, 58, 79
    Halka, Yeremiia, 18
    See also Kostomarov, Mykola
    Hamaliias, 29
    Hanka, Vaclav, 20, 64
    Hebrews, 47
    Hegel, Georg W. R, 30
    Herder, Johann G., 17, 30
    Hermaize, Osyp, 10
    Herzen, Alexander, 58, 74
    Hermans, 48
    Hetman state, 3-5, 8, 9,19, 64, 79
    re-establishment of, 62, 66, 68
    Hlukhiv,4 Holovko, 77
    Horbachevsky, Ivan, 5, 6, 8, 9
    Hrebinka, Yevhen, 22, 23
    Hrushevsky, Mykhailo, 49, 52, 53, 8:
    Hryhorovych, Vasyl, 22
    Hulak, Ivan, 19, 59
    Hulak, Mykola, 21, 24, 32, 34, 36, 66
    in Andruzsky's testimony, 62, 63
    arrest of, 58
    in Bilozersky's testimony, 58
    biography of, 19-20
    imprisonment of, 74
    in Kostomarov's testimony, 60
    in Kulish's testimony, 63
    as organizer of society, 40
    meetings at apartment of, 20, 24, 25, 35, 39, 57, 58
    participation in Brotherhood of, 35, 39, 40, 46, 47, 57
    sentencing of, 59, 67, 68
    testimony of, 59
    Hulak-Artemovsky, Petro, 17
    Hungary, 6
    Hurevych, Zynoviy, 1, 2, 34
    Italians, 47
    Jesuits, 48 Jez, 77
    Kalynsky, T., 9
    Kapnist, Miss, 39
    Kapnist, Vasyl, 5
    Kazan, 63, 67, 75
    Kharkiv, 7, 10,11, 29
    Kostomarov in, 16-18, 32, 61, 63
    University of, see University of Kharkiv
    Kharkiv university, see University of Kharkiv
    Khmelnytsky, Bohdan, 3, 37, 39, 63, 64,80
    Khomutets, 9
    Khorol, 9
    Khudorba, A., 9,10
    Kiev, 1, 3, 25, 34, 36, 57, 76, 81
    Bilozersky in, 24
    as capital of Slavic federation, 46, 60
    Cossack government in, 4
    Hulak in, 20, 40
    Kostomarov in, 17,18, 32, 39, 58, 74
    Kulish in, 23, 32, 33, 41
    Masonic lodges in, 5, 29, 30, 58
    population of, 15
    province of, 7, 22, 62
    Shevchenko in, 23
    University of, see University of Kiev Kievan Academy, 4
    Kievliania, 21
    Kiev Theological Academy, 40
    Kiev university, see University of
    Kiev Kochubeis, 29
    Kollar, Jan, 32
    Konarski, Szymon, 31
    Konyska, 9 Konysky, 10
    Korsakov, P., 23
    Kostomarov, Ivan, 16
    Kostomarov, Mykola, 2,15, 21, 24, 31, 52, 75-79, 81
    in Andruzsky's testimony, 38, 62, 63
    arrest of, 58
    in Bilozersky's testimony, 61, 62
    biography of, 16-19, 39
    exile of, 73
    in Kulish's letter, 41
    Kulish's letters to, 36-38
    in Kulish's testimony, 64
    last years of, 74
    as organizer of society, 40
    in Orlov's report, 68
    participation in Brotherhood by, 32, 35, 45-47, 49, 57
    philosophy of, 38, 39
    in Posiada's testimony, 33
    sentencing of, 67
    in Shevchenko's testimony, 65
    as student, 1
    as teacher, 34
    testimony of, 59-61
    writings of, 17,18, 34, 35, 50, 74
    Kotliarevsky, Ivan, 5, 30
    Kragelska, Alina, 39, 74
    Kremenchuk, 29
    Kulish, Oleksandra, 24
    Kulish, Panteleimon, 2,23, 24, 30, 31, 34, 40, 52, 77, 81
    in Andruzsky's testimony, 62, 63
    arrest of, 58
    in Bilozersky's testimony, 62
    biography of, 15, 20-22
    correspondence of, 21, 36-38, 41, 63,64
    exile of, 75
    in Kostomarov's testimony, 60
    in Orlov's report, 68, 69
    participation in Brotherhood by, 47
    sentencing of, 66
    in Shevchenko's testimony, 65
    testimony of, 63-65
    writings of, 22, 32, 33, 64, 76, 80
    Kursk, 7, 75
    Kvitka, Hryhory, 17, 64
    Lamennais, 50
    Lelewel, Joachim, 18
    Les Slaves Reunis, 5, 8
    Libelt, Karol, 18
    Lindheim, Ralph, 2
    Lithuania, 4, 48
    Lithuanian Statute, 4
    Little Russia, 9,10, 21, 41, 65, 68, 76, 78
    Little Russians, 6-8, 36, 37, 65, 66
    Lomykovskys, 29
    Love of Truth, 30
    Lublinski, Julian, 6
    Lukashevych, Platon, 31
    Lukashevych, Vasyl, 8, 9, 30
    Lukashevyches, 29
    Lunin, Mikhail, 17
    Lusatians, 45
    Lutsk, 21
    Lviv, 76
    Lypynsky, Viacheslav, 81
    Magdeburg Law, 4
    Maksymovych, Mykhailo, 21, 30, 31
    Malov, Father, 59
    Markevych, Mykola, 10, 31
    Markovych, Opanas, 24, 32, 34, 39,
    in Andruzsky's testimony, 62
    arrest of, 58
    in Bilozersky's testimony, 62
    exile of, 75
    sentencing of, 67
    Martos, Petro, 23
    Martoses, 29
    Marx, Karl, 50, 79
    Masons, 5, 8, 29, 30, 58
    Mazepa, Ivan, 10, 63, 66
    Methodius, 48
    Metlynsky, Amvrosii, 10,17, 21
    Mickiewicz, Adam, 18, 25, 32, 59
    in Kulish's testimony, 64
    in Paris, 18, 25, 31
    writings of, 49, 50
    Minkowski, Zygmunt, 77
    Milton, John, 20, 75
    Mochnacki, 18
    Mogilev, 7
    Mohyla, Petro, 4
    Mohyla Academy, 4
    Mombelli, M., 76
    Moryntsi, 22
    Moscow, 5, 29, 38, 57, 77, 78
    Kostomarov in, 16
    Shevchenko in, 23
    Moses, 47, 64
    Muravev, Matvei, 8 '
    Muravev, Nikita, 7, 46
    Muravev, Sergei, 8
    Muravev-Apostol, Matvei, 8-10
    Muscovy, 48
    Muzhylovska, Tetiana, 20
    Myrhorod, 9
    Napoleon, 8, 37
    Napoleonic wars, 5
    narodnost, 30-32
    Navrotsky, Oleksander, 25, 39, 40,
    in Andruzsky's testimony, 62, 63
    arrest of, 58
    in Bilozersky's testimony, 62
    exile of, 75
    last years of, 75
    participation in Brotherhood by, 47
    sentencing of, 67
    Nemyriv, 29
    Nicholas I, 4, 7, 73, 74, 78
    Nietzsche, Friedrich, 50
    Nikitenko, A., 76
    Nizami, 74
    Nizhyn Lyceum, 36
    Northern Society, 6, 7, 9
    Novikov, Nikolai, 29, 30
    Novoe ulozhenie, 8
    Obolensky, 9
    Obukhivka, 9
    Odessa, 29, 39, 74, 75
    Odyssey, 75
    Olonets, 75
    Orel, 67, 75
    Orlov, Count A. R, 49, 58, 59, 66, 76
    memo from, 77
    report by, 67-69
    Orsk, 73
    Osnova, 74, 76, 81
    Ostrogozhsk, 17
    Padura, Tymko, 8
    Panaev, I. P., 23
    Panslavism, 34, 68, 80
    kinds of, 77
    Kostomarov's views of, 38, 60
    in Russia, 32
    Papazian, D., 46, 47, 68
    Paris, 64, 77
    Mickiewicz in, 18, 25, 31, 49
    Paskevich, General, 65
    Pauli, Zegota, 31
    Pelech, O., 78
    Pereiaslav, 3, 4, 8
    Pericles, 37
    Perm, 74
    Pestel, Pavel, 7
    Peter I, 33, 48
    Petrashevsky, 76
    Petrenko, Mykhailo, 10, 21
    Petrov, Oleksiy, 25, 34, 61
    denunciation by, 57, 58
    last years of, 75
    rewarding of, 67
    Petrov, Victor, 33
    Petrovich, Ivan, 16
    Petrozavodsk, 74, 75
    Pletnev, P. 41, 75
    Podolia, 7
    Pogodin, M., 32
    Poland, 18, 49, 79, 81
    in Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People, 48
    and the Hetman state, 4
    joining with Ukraine, 8,10
    messianic role of, 50
    nationalism in, 19
    Shevchenko in, 22
    Poles, 3, 8, 64
    in Appeal to Brother Russians and Poles, 53, 64
    in Appeal to Brother Ukrainians, 51
    in by-laws, 45
    as nationalists, 18, 31, 32, 77
    Poletyka, Hryhory, 5, 9
    Poletyka, Vasyl, 9
    Polish Patriotic Society, 10
    Polish Society of United Brethren, 46
    Polonia, 19
    Poltava, 5, 7, 9, 30, 76
    Bilozersky in, 24, 39, 62
    brethren in, 24, 25
    Hulak in, 19
    Savych in, 67
    Polubotok, Pavlo, 10
    Posiada, Ivan, 15, 25, 33, 75
    in Andruzsky's testimony, 63
    arrest of, 58
    in Kostomarov's testimony, 60
    sentencing of, 67
    testimony of, 61
    Prague, 80
    Psalms, 34, 36
    Psiol, Oleksandra, 76
    Pushkin, Alexander, 6
    Pylchykiv, Dmytro, 15, 25, 58
    Pynkhvych, Oleksander, 50
    Radishchev, Alexander, 29, 30
    Repnina, Barbara, 23
    Riazan, 75
    Rivne, 17, 18, 32
    Romans, 47, 48
    Romanticism, 10, 21, 29-31, 40, 78-81
    Rozumovsky, Kyrylo, 29
    Rudnytsky, Ivan, 79
    Rusnaks, 7
    Russia, 3, 4, 6, 7, 21, 49
    Russian Empire, 2, 4, 6, 67, 80
    Russians, 7, 31, 45
    Rustaveli, 74
    Ruthenia, 19
    Ryleev, Kondrati, 10
    Safafik, Pavel, 32, 33
    Sahaidachny, Petro, 37
    Saints Cyril and Methodius, 32, 35, 40,60
    See also Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius Saratov, 67, 73
    Savych, Mykola, 25, 57
    arrest of, 58, 75
    in Kostomarov's testimony, 60, 61
    sentencing of, 67
    Schelling, F.W.J, von, 30
    Scott, Walter, 21
    Serbians, 45, 51
    Serhienko, H., 79
    Shakespeare, W. 76
    Shelley, P.B., 75
    Shevchenko, Mykyta, 23
    Shevchenko, Taras, 2,10, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 40, 63, 67, 76-79
    in Andruzsky's testimony, 62
    in Bilozerky's testimony, 62
    arrest of, 58
    biography of, 15, 22-24
    imprisonment of, 73
    and Kostomarov, 74
    in Kostomarov's testimony, 60, 61
    in Kulish's letter, 41
    in Kulish's testimony, 64
    as member of Brotherhood, 20
    in Orlov's report, 68, 69
    philosophy of, 50
    poetry of, 21, 23-25, 33, 34, 36, 39, 52, 58, 60, 62, 65, 68, 73, 80, 82
    sentencing of, 66
    testimony of, 65, 66
    Shevelov, George, 2
    Shevyrev, S., 32
    Skoropadskys, 29
    Slavic Congress, 80
    Slavic federation, 9, 32, 34, 40, 68, 76
    Andruzsky's views on, 62, 75
    in Appeal to Brother Russians and Poles, 51
    in Appeal to Brother Ukrainians, 51
    in Bilozersky's testimony, 61
    in Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People, 48, 49
    in by-laws, 45
    as central idea of Brotherhood, 2, 73
    Kostomarov's views on, 18, 35, 38,60
    principles for, 5
    Savych's views on, 57
    Shevchenko's views on, 33, 38
    Slavophilism, 60
    Slovaks, 45, 51
    Slovenes, 45, 51
    Society of United Slavs, 5
    Society of Wisdom Lovers, 30
    Socrates, 37
    Solovky islands, 75
    Somov, Orest, 11
    Soshenko, Ivan, 22
    Southern Society, 6-10
    Spaniards, 47
    Sreznevsky, Izmail, 10,11,17,18, 21
    starshyna, 4, 8, 29, 80
    St. Cyril, see Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius;
    Saints Cyril and Methodius St. Methodius, see Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius;
    Saints Cyril and Methodius Storozhenko, 65
    St. Paul, 33
    St. Petersburg, 6, 29, 81
    Bilozersky in, 74
    Hulak in, 40, 58
    Kostomarov in, 74
    Kulish in, 20, 32, 33, 63
    Navrotsky in, 75
    Shevchenko in, 22, 23, 65, 73
    Stroganov, S., 78
    St. Stanislas, 46
    Stur, Ludovit, 64
    Subtelny, Orest, 2
    Suvorov, 16
    Swedenborg, 78
    Swift, Jonathan, 20
    Szporluk, Roman, 52
    Tarnovsky, Vasyl, 36
    Tatars, 48, 51
    Tbilisi, 74
    Temir-Khan-Shur, 75
    Thaden, E., 4
    Third Section, 49, 58, 67
    Thomas a Kempis, 78
    Traskin, General, 57, 63
    Treaty of Pereiaslav, 3, 4
    Trotsky, Inspector, 63
    Truten, 29
    Tsertelev, Nikolai, 31
    Tugendbund, 7
    Tula, 66, 75
    Tulub, Oleksander, 25, 58
    Turkey, 25
    Turks, 48 .
    Ukraine, history of, 3-4, 47-48
    Ukrainian revival, 17, 73
    Ukrainians, 45 Ukrainophilism, 81
    Ukrainsky almanakh, 17
    Ukrainsky vestnik, 17
    Ukrainsky zhurnal, 17
    Union of Salvation, 7
    Union of Welfare, 7
    United Slavs, 5-9, 29
    United States, 7, 35, 46, 62, 76
    University of Dorpat, 19, 20
    University of Kazan, 67
    University of Kharkiv, 4, 15-17, 25, 77
    University of Kiev, 77
    brethren at, 24, 25
    founding of, 15, 20, 30
    Kostomarov at, 18, 34, 60, 74
    Kulish at, 20
    Petrov at,, 57
    Uvarov, S., 30, 31, 77, 78, 80
    Vasylkiv, 8
    Viatka, 67, 75
    Vilinska, Maria, 75
    Vilno, 22
    Vitebsk, 7
    Voinarovsky, Andriy, 10
    Volhynia, 7, 18, 29, 31
    Vologda, 66
    Voltaire, F.M.A., 16
    von der Bruggen, O., 10
    Voronezh, 16, 20
    Vovchok, Marko, 75, 76
    Vyshnivka, 29
    Wactew z Oleska, 31
    WaHcki, Andrzej, 18, 49
    Warsaw, 22, 28, 75, 76
    Western Europe, 2, 77, 79, 81
    Enlightenment in, 29
    Kostomarov in, 74
    Kulish's trip to, 65
    Savych in, 25
    Young Poland, 31
    Young Ukraine, 1, 2
    Yuzefovych, Mykhailo, 20, 21, 32, 57
    Zaionchkovsky, P., 34, 46, 79
    Zakon bozhy, see Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People
    Zakrevska, Hanna, 23
    Zaporozhian Sich, 4
    Zavadsky, 57
    Zhukovsky, Vasily, 22
    Zhytomyr, 29

    Back Cover
    Young Ukraine to the first English-language monograph on the history and significance of the Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius, a secret society based in Kiev, and the first movement dedicated to the liberation of Ukraine from Russian rule.

    The Cyrilo-Methodian Brotherhood was a political, intellectual and literary movement totally committed to Ukrainian nationalism and culture. Among its members were Mykola Kostomarov, an historian, Panteleimon Kulish, a writer, and the poet Taras Shevchenko. They were all arrested in 1847 and severely punished, but their ideal of a Ukrainian republic, based on Christian principles and federated with other Slavic states, was later revived and played a significant part in the history of Ukrainian liberation.

    As well as making an important scholarly contribution to the fields of Ukrainian history and literature, drawing on translations of the original documents of the society, Young Ukraine presents a dramatic tale of persecution and ultimate triumph.

    George Luckyj, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto, has dedicated his entire academic career to the study of Ukrainian literature. He has published thirty books in the field, including Literary Politics in the Soviet Ukraine 1917-34 (first published in 1956 and recently updated) and Between Gogol and Shevchenko (1971). Professor Luckyj is currently working on a compendium of Ukrainian literature.
    University of Ottawa Press ISBN 0-7766-0302-7