Abstract
The purpose of this article is to examine the development of the issue of Ukrainian nationality in late imperial and revolutionary Russia, focusing on the scholarly works and political activities of two contemporary intellectuals, Mykhailo Hrushevsky （1866―1934） and Boris Nolde （1876―1948）, both of whom addressed the topic of Ukrainian autonomy in history and the present, studying the Cossack Hetmanate in early modern Ukraine within the context of the introduction of national autonomy for contemporary Ukraine. By juxtaposing the careers of these two thinkers with diametrically opposed viewpoints of a Ukrainian nationalistic historian, on the one hand, and a Russian imperial bureaucrat, on the other, the author hopes to offer a better understanding of the structure of the debate surrounding Ukrainian and other nationality issues in revolutionary Russia.
The author begins by discussing Hrushevsky and Nolde’s historiographical works regarding the early modern Cossack Hetmanate. In his comprehensive history of the Ukrainian nation, Hrushevsky regarded the Hetmanate as a Ukrainian nation-state achieved by the national liberation movement led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky, while Nolde, a jurist with a degree in international law, examined the autonomy of the Hetmanate within the context of the other autonomous regions within the territory of the Russian Empire, thus demonstrating the different interests with which the two paid similar attention to the historical experience of Ukrainian autonomy.
Next, the author traces their writings on contemporary political issues between the Revolutions of 1905 and 1917. On the one hand, Hrushevsky advocated the federalization of Russia into autonomous regions demarcated along the lines of demographic distribution of nationalities, arguing that national autonomy was justified by the natural rights that every nationality essentially possessed. Nolde, on the other hand, countered the call of the non-Russian autonomists for the decentralization of the empire, by citing the interpretation of European international law on modern sovereign states, in support of the abolition of premodern autonomy, including the Hetmanate, and as evidence that the Russian Empire had followed a healthy course in the development of centralization.
Finally, the author takes up the subject of Hrushevsky and Nolde’s engagement in Ukrainian autonomy issues after the February Revolution. As a leader in the Ukrainian national organ, Central Rada, Hrushevsky succeeded in achieving de facto Ukrainian territorial autonomy, while Nolde, as a member of the Judicial Commission of the Provisional Government, represented the interests of the central state apparatus, which attempted to hinder Hrushevsky’s efforts, arguing juridically that the kind of federalization demanded by the non-Russian nationalists would disrupt the Russian state.
The author concludes that the issues surrounding nationality in modern multi-ethnic empires should not be regarded simply as conflicts between national liberation movements and oppressive imperial regimes, but rather, more attention should be paid to the nuances within arguments and terminology used in each discursive arena of constitutional debate.
