Imperial Russia: New Histories for the Empire

Volume 6 of Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi's (Hrushevsky's) monumental History of Ukraine-Rus' is the concluding tome of a three-volume series (volumes 4, 5, and 6) dedicated to the Lithuanian-Polish epoch of the history of the Ukrainian people. Volumes 1 to 3 of Hrushevs'kyi's History, together, address the period ending with the fall of Kyivan Rus' and the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia, while the tomes after volume 6 deal with the early stages of the Cossack period and the (re-)establishment of Ukrainian sovereignty in the form of the Cossack Hetmanate. Hrushevs'kyi's conceptualization of the "history of the Ukrainian people" can be seen as one of his most important contributions to Eastern European historiography. In his work, we encounter the study of the Ukrainian people as a whole-as opposed to the study of various distinct entities located within a number of neighbouring states (Poland; the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; Hungary and then Austria-Hungary; Muscovy and then Russia; and so on). Hrushevs'kyi conceived of a fundamental unity permeating the history of the Ukrainian people from the time of Rus' all the way to the goal and apogee of the historian-cumpolitician-the re-establishment of a unified and independent Ukraine in the twentieth century (a project that Hrushevs'kyi himself took part in, both in its glorious beginnings and in its heartbreaking failures). In setting down a thesis on the continuity of the history of the Ukrainian people, Hrushevs'kyi provided subsequent generations of students of Ukrainian history with an essentially anti-statist methodological framework that allowed them to explore a subject area not merely reduced to a political history of a state with precisely delineated political borders. Such theoretical innovation and foresight have secured Hrushevs'kyi's high stature in the field of history-and especially in the study of Ukrainian cultural history. Mention should also be made of Hrushevs'kyi's importance in the study of the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (PLC) as a whole. By creating a model that includes the dwellers of the Brest and Pinsk regions of what is now Belarus within a definition of the Ukrainian people and that thoroughly documents them, Hrushevs'kyi has indirectly given us a paradigm for conducting cross-cultural and cross-national research that aims to

East/West: Journal of Ukrainian Studies

Volume 6 of Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi's (Hrushevsky's) monumental History of Ukraine-Rus' is the concluding tome of a three-volume series (volumes 4, 5, and 6) dedicated to the Lithuanian-Polish epoch of the history of the Ukrainian people. Volumes 1 to 3 of Hrushevs'kyi's History, together, address the period ending with the fall of Kyivan Rus' and the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia, while the tomes after volume 6 deal with the early stages of the Cossack period and the (re-)establishment of Ukrainian sovereignty in the form of the Cossack Hetmanate. Hrushevs'kyi's conceptualization of the "history of the Ukrainian people" can be seen as one of his most important contributions to Eastern European historiography. In his work, we encounter the study of the Ukrainian people as a whole-as opposed to the study of various distinct entities located within a number of neighbouring states (Poland; the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; Hungary and then Austria-Hungary; Muscovy and then Russia; and so on). Hrushevs'kyi conceived of a fundamental unity permeating the history of the Ukrainian people from the time of Rus' all the way to the goal and apogee of the historian-cumpolitician-the re-establishment of a unified and independent Ukraine in the twentieth century (a project that Hrushevs'kyi himself took part in, both in its glorious beginnings and in its heartbreaking failures). In setting down a thesis on the continuity of the history of the Ukrainian people, Hrushevs'kyi provided subsequent generations of students of Ukrainian history with an essentially anti-statist methodological framework that allowed them to explore a subject area not merely reduced to a political history of a state with precisely delineated political borders. Such theoretical innovation and foresight have secured Hrushevs'kyi's high stature in the field of history-and especially in the study of Ukrainian cultural history. Mention should also be made of Hrushevs'kyi's importance in the study of the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (PLC) as a whole. By creating a model that includes the dwellers of the Brest and Pinsk regions of what is now Belarus within a definition of the Ukrainian people and that thoroughly documents them, Hrushevs'kyi has indirectly given us a paradigm for conducting cross-cultural and cross-national research that aims to

Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana, 2019

Правительство постоянно беспокоилось о «цене империи», которую понимало как финансовые издержки за удержание какой-либо окраины в составе государства. Министерство финансов вычисляло цену как разницу между государственными расходами на содержание администрации и войск, обустройство границ и городов, проведение железных дорог, а также других затрат от казны, с одной стороны, и бюджетными доходами от всех налогов и прибылей, которые государственное казначейство получало, – с другой. Проблема цены империи и ее единства имеет экономическое измерение, но не сводится к экономическим выгодам и потерям. С точки зрения империи, огромную роль играли вопросы ее безопасности, военной, экономической и геополитической власти, мессианизм, культурное и религиозное преобладание, решение внутренних политических проблем, легитимация власти императора, престиж верховной власти и государства и другие. Окраины оценивали «цену» империи со своей точки зрения и также учитывали нематериальные факторы. Степень защищенности, мера цивилизаторской миссии Центра, опасность ассимиляции и утраты этнической идентичности, возможность этнокультурной автономии и др. Однако оценить нематериальные факторы намного труднее и главное – проблематичнее, потому что точки зрения Центра и периферийных регионах различались и консенсус найти часто невозможно. Отношения между Центром и окраинами Российской империи были столь разнообразными, многосторонними и динамичными, что подвести их под какую-то одну формулу или один сценарий невозможно. Этнополитология предлагает три схемы для описания природы отношений центра и пе­риферии: концепции гегемонии, внутреннего колониализма и диффузионизма. Чаще всего российское правительство проводило политику гегемонии и интеграции. Элементы колониализма встречались на ранних этапах освоения окраин. Тесная административная, правовая и экономическая интеграции на основе взаимных выгод постоянно находилась в центре его внимания. Но главная цель верховной власти и его правительства состояла в сохранении целостности империи. Ради этого они готовы были идти на любые жертвы со стороны русских. Однако в экстремальных случаях требовали и со стороны других народов империи поступиться своими интересами. ******* The government constantly fretted over the “cost of empire”, which it understood as the expense of possessing any borderlands as part of the state. The Ministry of Finance calculated the cost as the difference between state outlays for the maintenance of its administration and armed forces, the construction of borders and towns, and the installation of railways, as well as other expenses from the treasury, on the one hand, and budget revenue from all taxes and income the treasury received, on the other.The problem of the cost of empire and the empire’s unity, however, is not confined to economic gains and losses. From the empire’s point of view, the issues that played a huge role were the empire’s security, its military, economic, and geopolitical power, messianism, cultural and religious predominance, the resolution of internal political problems, the legitimization of the emperor’s rule, the prestige of the supreme authority and the state, and other matters. For their part, the borderlands assessed the cost of empire and also took non-material factors into account: the degree of security, the extent of the center’s civilizing mission, the danger of assimilation and of the loss of ethnic identity, the desire for ethno-cultural autonomy, and others. Appraising the intangible factors is much more difficult and, above all, more problematic, because the perspectives of the center and the peripheral regions differ and it is often impossible to find consensus.The relationship between the сenter and the borderlands of the Russian empire was so varied, multifaceted, and dynamic that to express it through a single formula or scenario is impossible. The field of ethnopolitics offers three several such schemes to describe the nature of relations between the center and the periphery: the concept of hegemony, of internal colonization, and of diffusionism. Analysis of the center’s relations with the borderlands in the imperial period shows that at various times and in various regions all three scenarios have been realized, but most often the government followed the concepts of hegemony and diffusion. Occasionally, one encounters elements of colonialism in the early stages of the acquisition of the borderlands. Close administrative, legal, and economic integration on the basis of mutual advantages continuously lies at the center of the government’s attention. But the main purpose of the supreme authority and its government consisted of preserving the integrity of the empire. For this reason, they were prepared to make any sacrifices on the part of the Russians. In extreme cases, however, they required that other peoples of the empire also sacrifice their own interests for a time.

12 It was a crucial difference between the Ruthenians, Czechs and Lachs. Mickiewicz attributed a special significance to it. Therefore, he wrote: "This constitutes a great divine (…). Ruthenia has always been subject to a strange dynasty and strange rules; for the Czechs and in Poland-it was a national dynasty and rules-purely Slavic."-A. Mickiewicz, Literatura słowiańska. Kurs pierwszy cz. I…., p. 94 and the following. 13 Mickiewicz took over the thesis from his "master", Joachim Lelewel. Lelewel was of an opinion that Europe was subject to a developmental dichotomy. Western Europe was feudal, the Eastern one-non-feudal-M.

Rus', Lithuania, Horde: journal of numismatics and sigillography. Volume 9. , 2021

Sixteenth Century Journal, 2020

Handbook of Ancient Afro-Eurasian Economies: Vol. I: Contexts, 2020

Cahiers du monde russe. , 2023

Russie-Empire russe-Union soviétique et États indépendants 64/2 | 2023 Histoire économique de la Russie au début de l'époque moderne Dossier. Histoire économique de la Russie au début de l'époque moderne Economic history of early modern Russia Zoia V. Dmitrieva's scientific career is a long and successful one. Born in 1946, she studied sixteenth-and seventeenth-century Russian history at Leningrad State University, which shaped her further professional development. She was part of the group of students who, in the second half of the 1960s, were involved in preparing 2 SEARCH All OpenEdition