ISSN / EISSN : 1857-2685 / 2345-1149
Published by: Tomsk State University (10.17223)
Total articles ≅ 438
Latest articles in this journal
Rusin pp 115-134; https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/64/6
The autumn of 1918 in Europe was quite remarkable in every respect. WWI ended, empires collapsed to give place to new state formations. New states had to form under unequal terms: those supporting the victorious side received privileges, while those who were with the vanquished were given less chance to create their own independent state. Some state formations existed for only a short time and were recognized as states only by their creators. Carpathian Rusins in Poland and Hungary made such attempts. In Hungary, they formed the Hutsul Republic, which existed from January to June 1919 in the village of Yasinia and its environs (modern Transcarpathian region of Ukraine). The article aims at describing the local context of this state entity, its uniqueness, perspectives of local political elites, and the attitude of official Hungary towards the selfproclaimed republic. The authors focus on the local circumstances that made the Hutsul Republic possible (the collapse of the Hungarian state apparatus, the state of soldiers returning from the front, supply disruptions, and epidemics) and highlight the current perception of those events in the national memory and state policy.
Rusin pp 135-153; https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/64/7
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Russian Empire played an important role in the processes of European migration. Of particular importance was the migration policy with the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Czechs, Rusins, Poles, and Slovaks, who belonged to the Austro-Hungarian population, settled mainly in the European part of the Russian Empire and engaged mainly in agriculture, while the Austrians and Germans opened industrial enterprises in the cities of Western Siberia (Governor- Generalship of the Steppes, 1882–1918). In general, there were two reasons why the Austro-Hungarians settled in Western Siberia and Turkestan: some voluntarily resettled and contributed to the economic and social development of the regions, while others had to move here as prisoners of war. However, it should be noted that in both cases, the tsarist administration did not restrict their social and legal status. The article examines the reasons for the stay of Austro-Hungarian subjects in Western Siberia and Turkestan, as well as their impact on the socio-economic situation of these regions. Austro- Hungarian immigrants, as well as immigrants from other European countries, acted as transmitters of new entrepreneurial experience, advanced technologies, and Western entrepreneurial culture. The descendants of immigrants from the Austro-Hungarian lands became part of the multinational composition of Western Siberia and Turkestan.
Rusin pp 138-155; https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/63/7
During the Revolution and the Civil War, a few score of thousands of natives of the Ciscarpathian Rus came to Siberia and the Far East as refugees and prisoners of war. All of them, including members of the Central Carpatho-Russian Council (CCC), had to choose different strategies to adapt to the changing environment. At the same time, this forced them to choose sides in the conflict, which, in turn, foregrounded the problem of self-identification. Addressing these issues in terms of the history of emotions, it is possible to build a research model that allows reconstructing and describing the adaptation and self-identification strategies used by the community as a kind of attempt to construct an “emotional community”. This construction itself could occur by creating certain “emotional modes”, which were a set of prescribed emotives – speech acts describing emotions and changing or causing them. Since emotives could be expressed in discourse and rituals, it is appropriate to turn to the analysis of the content of symbolic politics and media, namely the official CCC newspaper Karpatorusskoe slovo. This research analyses the newspaper publications to identify the emotives used by the CCC for shaping a certain emotional mode for the “emotional community” – the natives of Ciscarpathia, who found themselves in unfamiliar social and cultural environment in Eastern Russia. The analysis allows considering the specificity of the CCC’s agitation activities and the process of construction of the Carpatho-Russian identity as “an inherent part of the Russian people”.
Rusin pp 173-189; https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/63/9
The article examines the circumstances, details, and elements of the struggle among Poland, Hungary and the ruling circles of Czechoslovakia for the influence on Subcarpathian Rus to use it in their own political expediency. Since Subcarpathian Rus was faced with the German military threat and involved in the “small collective security system” along with France and the Soviet Union in May 1935, it had to solve the problem of strategic interaction with the latter. As there were no common border between Subcarpathian Rus and the Soviet Union, the problem was solved by constructing a strategic railroad through the territory of Romania. As a result, Subcarpathian Rus, which located in the east of Czechoslovakia, found itself at the forefront of the interaction, largely forced, yet vitally necessary for the political leadership of Prague. The activity of Warsaw and Budapest, which intensified after the Munich conference, together with some other factors ended up in mid-March of 1939 with the proclamation of the independent “Subcarpathian Ukraine” and its immediate occupation by Hungary with the tacit permission of Germany.
Rusin pp 190-204; https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/63/10
The article presents the facts of material damage caused by the German-Romanian invaders to the institutions of the Orthodox Church of Moldova. The analysis of the archives of the Republic of Moldova, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic and the works of researchers revealed three stages of damage inflicted by the invaders on religious organizations. The total amount of damage amounted to 91.5 million rubles, including church buildings – 22,580,000 rubles (including the churches of Pridnestrovie – 4,192,423 rubles). The invaders destroyed the buildings of 44 churches and 2 chapels, partially damaged 22 churches. Dozens of valuable religious shrines were removed from Moldovan churches and monasteries. The most valuable loss is a copy of the Gerbovetsky Icon of the Most Holy Mother of God (worth 120 mln rubles). The invaders also stole church utensils and priestly vestments. The motive for these actions was the alleged desire to “save” the shrines from destruction by the Bolsheviks. The leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church has repeatedly raised the question of returning the valuables taken by the occupiers to the Romanian side. However, the problem has not been solved, though a small part of the property stolen by the invaders returned to the Moldovan churches.
Rusin pp 223-240; https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/63/12
The article examines how images of other nations are formed in the artistic world of a writer – a representative of another nation. Employing the imagological approach with its tools for studying the ethnic structures of the text and drawing on E. Smith’s concept of the national identity and E. Levinas’s concept of the Other, the author analysies the problem of perception of the Other on the interpersonal and intercultural levels, using the artistic heritage of the Ukrainian Rusin writer Yu. Fedkovych as a case study. The article highlights the dominants in the representation of other ethnic groups in the context of the writer’s identity, taking into consideration the cultural and historical discourses of the literature of a particular nation. Born into an interethnic family in Bukovynian Hutsulia, which was part of multicultural Austria, working and doing military service in various territories of Europe, communicating with representatives of various ethnic groups, Y. Fedkovich recorded the main stereotypes in perception of other nations’ representatives, which reveal the specificity of European interethnic relations. The main attention is drawn to the analysis of the Hutsul image of the world and the dominant images of the Other (Italian, Austrian, German, Moldavian / Romanian, Serbian, Polish, Jewish, Gypsy Imago). According to Levinas, the factors that determine the image of the Other are situations of freedom / enslavement, reinforced by the experience of war. Theoretical considerations are confirmed by examples from creative works. In this perspective, the literature represents intercultural dialogue in the European space to become a source of ethnoimagological studies.
Rusin pp 205-222; https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/63/11
Historian K.K. Fedevich, author of the book For Faith, Tsar and Kobzar. The Little Russian Monarchists and Ukrainian National Movement (1905–1917) put forward a revisionist concept whereby the Little Russian monarchists and the black-hundredists (primarily, the Pochaev Division of the Union of the Russian People) were the right wing of the Ukrainian national movement. In an effort to prove his theory, Fedevich focuses on the “Ukrainian national terminology” and “Ukrainian discourse” in the black-hundredists’ newspapers, misrepresenting the historical-political and social-economic analysis of such specific phenomen as the Volhynian Black Hundred. His thesis that after 1917 many Little Russian black-hundredists joined the Ukrainian camp is correct; however, its substantiation does not stand up to scrutiny. Fedevich thinks that the reason to this transfer was the “Ukrainian” campaign of the Black-Hundred. The author of the article argues that the “Ukrainization” of former mebers of the Union of the Russian People was based on the desire of peasants to get land, and thus qualifies the Little Russian Black Hundred as a radical peasant movement akin to social movements of the Middle Ages. Furthermore, the article brings forward materials about the participation of the former black-hundredists in the Ukrainian movement during the Civil War and pogroms in 1919 as well as focuses on Fedevich’s glaring errors. The author concludes that in spite of a number of interesting findings, Fedevich’s concept is of tendentious nature.
Rusin pp 43-51; https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/63/4
The article aims at showing the national and cultural revival of the Rusins in Lemkivshchyna in the late 19th – first third of the 20th century. The revivial was brought about by new historical and social realities, including the increased number of emigrants and industrial workers who ordered carvings and memorial structures, a growing role of patrons and resumed activities of such resorts cities as Ivonic, Rimanov, Krinitsa and others. The traditional art of wood and stone carving reached its developmental apogee in these regions. Dynasties of artisans practicing the revived traditional Rusin crafts were formed. The art of carving developed in line with the national traditions of the Eastern rite church. The Lemko artisans demonstrated their Rusin national identity in woodcarving and memorial structures through Cyrillic inscriptions, crosses with oriental ritual iconography, etc., surrounded by other ethnic sacred cultures.
Rusin pp 156-172; https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/63/8
The revolutionary changes of 1917 contributed to the intensification of the political, national, and cultural life of the Greek community of the entire Black Sea and Azov Sea coasts, where the national states emerged on the shards of the former Russian Empire. In contrast to the Azov Sea region, where the Greeks had an active social and political life and by the end of 1917 had formed the Mariupol Union of the Hellenic People, the Greeks of the Northern Black Sea region were quite apolitical and inactive. Their attitude to the Ukrainian and Soviet powers was rather ambiguous, and during 1917 they maintained, mainly, a wait and see position. Only individual representatives of the Greek people were affiliated with one or another party, which was more an exception than a typical feature of the Greek community. The Greeks fought in the ranks of the Imperial Army, N. Makhno’s Rebel Army, in the Red Army, in regular units and partisan detachments of the Volunteer Army. In contrast to the rural population, which opposed the Volunteer Army and its policies, the urban communities of Odessa, Nikolaev, and Kherson actively supported both the French-Greek Entente troops and Denikin’s Volunteer Army. Most urban Greeks were well-to-do middle-class persons running small and medium businesses (restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, various workshops, etc.) and did not accept the ideas of social and property equality proclaimed by the Bolsheviks. The article draws on the periodical press and undefined documents of the Soviet Special Services to define the role of the Greek communies of the Ukrainian Black Sea Region cities in the revolutionary events. The authors analyze the role of the Greek community members in the military and political events of 1917–1920 and their attitude to the changing powers, participation in the revolutionary struggle, the reasons for the emigration of 1919–1920, and Bolshevik repressions against the Greek ethnos. It is concluded that the Greek community of the Northern Black Sea region suffered the greatest losses as a result of mass emigration, rather than civil confrontation during the revolution time.
Rusin pp 81-137; https://doi.org/10.17223/18572685/63/6
The Russian historian I.P. Filevich (1856–1913) was a native of Chełm Land and the son of a Uniate priest, a native of Galicia, who had been invited to Kholmshchyna by the Russian authorities. I.P. Filevich devoted his life to studying the history and modern state of Carpathian Rus, including his native Russian Zabuzhie, which, according to the historian, played an important role in Russian history, but was ignored by Russian historiography, since the few works by Russian researchers, mostly done during their visits to these regions, could not fill this gap. Polish historians were biased in their coverage of the history of these terrotiries, considering them originally Polish. There are few works by Galician-Russian historians D.I. Zubritsky, A.S. Petrushevich, I.I. Sharanevich and others, but they were almost unknown in Russia and failed to give a complete picture of the history of Carpathian Rus either. In his works, I.P. Filevich raises the issues of the history of Galicia and Chełm Land. In his Master’s thesis "The Struggle of Poland and Lithuania-Rus for the Galician-Vladimir Legacy", he explored the "dark" period in the history of Galician Rus – from 1340 to 1433, before the occupied lands were finally annexed to Poland to form the Ruthenian Voivodeship. In his doctoral dissertation "History of Ancient Rus. Vol. 1. Territory and Population", he described the history of the study of Carpathian Rus in modern times and tries to identify the western boundaries of the "Russian territory", indicating the presence of the Russian population in Transylvania. In other works, he characterized the reunification of the Uniates and the "return to the Russian roots" in Chełm Land, analysing the mistakes made during this process. I.P. Filevich studied the history of Austrian rule in Galicia, the social and political life of the Rusins, the history of the union in Galicia and Chełm Land, the fate of the Galicia-Vladimir land within Poland, and the history of the struggle between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. He also emphasised the importance of studying the "geographical nomenclature". His works aroused general, scholarly and political interest in the problems of Carpathian Rus, including Chełm Land, and ultimately contributed a lot to the solution of the problem of separating Chełm Land and Podlasie into a separate province.