Harvard Ukrainian Studies 34, no. 1 -4 (2015-16): 343-72. History, Faith, and Regional Identity in NineteenthCentury Kyiv: Father Petro Lebedyntsev as Priest and Scholar H e a t h e r Co l e ma n h e c o n c e p t o f r e g i o n has a bad name in Ukrainian history and present-day politics. Well before the Party of Regions, the Crimean debacle, and the war in eastern Ukraine, the very fact that one could ask whether there were one, two, or twenty-two Ukraines was regarded as a fundamental problem of national life. 1 Regionalism seems to be an unfortunate legacy of a time when Ukraine was just an idea, either evidence of a failure of, or dangerously impeding, the nation-building process. In Western scholarship on Ukrainian history, the local, the regional, and the social have been consistently understudied, especially with respect to imperial Russian Ukraine where, unlike in Galicia, only a minority of the population had been nationally mobilized by the early twentieth century .2 Pioneering work such as Volodymyr Kravchenko’s examination of regional identity in Kharkiv is beginning to unpack the evolution of such perspectives and their interaction with wider patterns of identity construction . 3 Yet both the study of regionalism and study in regions need development, not only in order to move beyond the national paradigm and open up a range of basic but neglected questions, such as social and economic modernization, social relations, or the evolution of civil society, but also in order to develop our understanding of the old chestnut of national identity in new and more concrete ways. Indeed, studies of regionalism in modern European nation­ states, such as France and Germany, in the nineteenth century are demonstrating how regional and national identities coexisted and, indeed, could be mutually reinforcing.4 Meanwhile, after the collapse of the Soviet Union opened up possibilities for serious study in local T 344 COLEM AN a r c h iv e s b e y o n d M o s c o w a n d L e n in g r a d , W e s te r n s c h o la r s f lo c k e d to t h e “p r o v i n c e s ” ( a n d t o t h e n e w l y i n d e p e n d e n t s t a t e s , s u c h a s U k r a i n e , w h i c h h a d f o r m e d p a r t o f t h e r e s t r i c t e d “p r o v i n c e s ” d u r i n g t h e S o v i e t p e r io d ) . T h is m o v e m e n t c o n tr ib u te d to th e flo w e r in g o f s tu d ie s o f R u s s ia a s e m p ir e , to a n e w u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h o w c e n tr a l p o lic ie s a c tu a lly p la y e d o u t a m id lo c a l c ir c u m s t a n c e s , a n d to a r e e v a lu a ti o n o f t h e h ig h ly c e n tr a li z e d p e r s p e c ti v e t h a t h a d c h a r a c t e r i z e d th e h i s ­ t o r i o g r a p h y o f t h e v a s t a n d d iv e r s e R u s s ia n E m p ir e . 5 H i s to r ia n s h a v e a lso t u r n e d th e ir a tte n tio n to th e lo c a l fo r its o w n sa k e , e x p lo rin g th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f p ro v in c ia l a n d re g io n a l id e n titie s , in c lu d in g th e m a n ­ n e r in w h ic h b u re a u c ra tic a lly c r e a te d te r r ito r ia l u n its c o u ld b e c o m e i n f u s e d w i t h m e a n i n g b y t h e i r i n h a b i t a n t s . 6 T h e e v i d e n c e is c l e a r t h a t n a t i o n s a r e , i n f a c t , c r e a t e d w h e r e p e o p l e liv e , a n d a r e m e d i a t e d b y l o c a l i d e n t i t i e s . O u r t a s k is t o u n p a c k t h e s e i d e n t i t i e s a n d e x p l o r e t h e i r p o te n tia litie s a n d th e ir fu n c tio n in g , r a th e r th a n v ie w in g re g io n a lis m as a w a y s ta tio n o r e v e n a " w ro n g t u r n ” in th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f a n a tio n a l id e n ti ty ( w h e th e r U k r a in ia n o r R u s s ia n ). T h e p a r is h c le rg y o f te n p la y e d a n im p o r ta n t ro le in th e e la b o r a ­ tio n o f lo c a l a n d r e g io n a l id e n titie s .7 I n im p e r ia l R u s s ia , in c lu d in g i ts U k r a i n i a n p r o v in c e s , m o s t O r t h o d o x p r i e s t s h a d d e e p r o o t s in t h e i r p a r i s h e s w e ll in to t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n tu r y . F o r o n e t h in g , e v e n a f te r a s y n o d r e s o l u t i o n b a n n e d f a m ily c la im s to c le r ic a l p o s it io n s , b is h o p s c o n t i n u e d in p r a c t i c e to a llo w p a r i s h e s to r e m a i n “in th e f a m ily .”8 P r i e s t s ’ c h i l d r e n , t h o u g h d i s t i n g u i s h e d b y m e m b e r s h i p i n th e c le r ic a l e s ta te a n d th e e d u c a tio n t h a t a c c o m p a n ie d t h a t s ta tu s , n e v e r t h e le s s g r e w u p a m o n g v illa g e r s , p la y in g w it h th e o t h e r c h ild r e n o f th e p a ris h a n d s p e a k in g th e ir la n g u a g e . B e fo re th e s p r e a d o f p r i ­ m a ry s c h o o ls fr o m th e 1 8 6 0 s, p r ie s ts c o n s titu te d th e m a in e d u c a te d e le m e n t in th e c o u n tr y s id e , a n d th e y r e m a in e d so in s o m e tim e s te n s e p a r t n e r s h i p w ith th e v illa g e t e a c h e r th e r e a f te r . In R ig h t-B a n k U k ra in e , w h e r e th e n o b ility w a s m o s tly R o m a n C a th o lic a n d P o lis h - s p e a k in g , th e c le rg y fo r m e d th e p r in c ip a l e d u c a te d v o ic e a m o n g th e m a jo rity U k r a in ia n - s p e a k in g lo c a l p o p u la ti o n . T h is e ss a y e x p lo re s th e re g io n a l o u tlo o k o f th e a r c h p r ie s t o f th e K y iv d i o c e s e a n d p r o m i n e n t l o c a l h i s t o r i a n F a t h e r P e t r o H a v r y l o v y c h L e b e d y n t s e v . L e b e d y n t s e v s e r v e d a s d e a n o f S t. S o p h i a ’s C a t h e d r a l i n K y iv f r o m 1 8 6 8 t o h i s d e a t h i n 1 8 9 6 . A p e r s o n e n d o w e d w i t h t r e ­ m e n d o u s e n e r g y , h e c o m b in e d a c tiv e p a s to r a l w o r k w ith r e s p o n - H IS T O R Y , F A IT H , A N D R E G IO N A L ID E N T IT Y 345 sible p o sitions in th e church ad m in istratio n , dedication to various w orthy causes, an d vast literary activity as a local histo rian . In an o bituary M ykhailo H ru sh ev s'k y i praised L ebedyntsev’s scholarship as an o u tstan d in g exam ple o f an earlier generation of Kyiv scholars w hose w ork featured a “do m in atio n o f tiny detailed qu estio n s” and com bined an “uncultivated...national and political w orld view w ith a lively sym pathy for o n e’s region and its past.”9 W h a t was uncultivated from H ru sh e v s'k y i’s perspective was L ebedyntsev’s p reo ccu p atio n w ith the region, w ith the history of Kyiv province as an end in itself. Yet th a t local identity form ed the basis for an in terest in the fate of a b ro ad er U krainian nation stretching from Galicia to the left bank of th e D nipro (Dnieper) River, and served as a significant source o f his authority w ithin the Russian O rth o d o x C hurch. This essay focuses on L ebedyntsev’s early career in the 1850s and early 1860s, a p eriod in w hich he was w orking o u t his identity as a “south Russian,” and m ore specifically as a “southw estern Russian” th rough his historical research and pastoral w ork. As he carved o u t a highly successful career in the Russian church beginning in the 1860s, he continued to act up o n the southw estern identity he had expressed as a younger m an. L ebedyntsev was b o rn in 1819, the th ird o f ten children o f Father H avriil H ry h o ro v y ch L ebedyntsev an d his wife, Teklia O sypivna. He was b ro u g h t up in the typically m odest circum stances o f clerical families in Kyiv diocese, in th e village of Zelena Dibrova, Zvenyhorod county (now C herkasy oblast). His father, a village p riest w ith little form al education, was by all acco u n ts an exceptionally pious m an, popular w ith his parishioners and beloved by his children; his m other, whose father and grandfather were also local priests, was rem em bered as an unusually vivacious w om an and a fine m anager. Lebedyntsev was raised am id family stories ab o u t his Cossack roots and ab o u t the suffering o f his grandfather for th e faith, first as an O rth o d o x priest u n d er Polish rule and th en w hen he p articipated in the cam paign to transfer Uniate parishes into O rth o d o x hands after th e partitio n s of Poland. Like o th er p riests’ children, the L ebedyntsev offspring spoke the U krainian language of th eir village.10 Lebedyntsev was educated a t th e Bohuslav church p rim ary school and the Kyiv Sem inary, and co m p leted his hig h er ed u ca tio n as one o f th e b est stu d e n ts at the Kyiv Theological A cadem y in 1843. Before being ordained a priest in 1851, he sp en t several years as a sem inary teach er at the C hurch of 3 4 6 C O LEM A N t h e T r a n s f i g u r a t i o n i n t h e t o w n o f B ila T s e r k v a , K y iv p r o v i n c e . T h e r e h is o u ts ta n d in g g ifts c a m e to th e a tte n tio n o f th e d io c e s a n a u th o r i­ tie s in s e v e ra l s p h e r e s . F irst, a t a tim e w h e n p r e a c h in g w a s a p o o rly d e v e lo p e d s k ill a m o n g t h e p a r is h c le rg y , s e v e r a l o f h is s e r m o n s w e r e r e c o g n iz e d a s m o d e ls a n d w e re p r in te d a n d d is tr ib u te d a r o u n d th e d io c e s e . S e c o n d , h e p io n e e r e d p r im a r y e d u c a tio n b y o p e n in g s e v e ra l p a r is h p r im a r y s c h o o ls a r o u n d B ila T s e r k v a . F in a lly , a s t h e d i s t r i c t d e a n , h e s e r v e d w ith d is tin c tio n o n th e c o m m is s io n e s ta b lis h e d b y th e G o v e r n o r - G e n e r a l to c a lm th e v io le n t K o z a c h c h y n a p e a s a n t u p r is in g o f 1 8 5 5 . F o r t h i s w o r k , h e r e c e i v e d t h e f i r s t o f m a n y h o n o r s . 11 B e r e a v e d a n d c h ild le s s a f te r th e d e a th o f h is w ife in 1853, it w a s in B ila T s e r k v a t h a t L e b e d y n ts e v b e g a n to d e v o te h is s p a r e t i m e to h i s t o r i c a l r e s e a r c h a n d w r it i n g , p u b li s h in g in t h e o ff ic ia l p r o v in c ia l n e w sp ap er, Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti g a th e rin g o ra l h is to rie s fro m (K y iv P r o v i n c i a l G a z e t t e ) , h is e ld e r ly p a r is h io n e r s , w o r k in g fo r th e p r e s e r v a tio n o f lo c a l h is to r ic s ite s , a n d c o lle c tin g m a te ria ls fr o m th e a rc h iv e s o f e v e r y m o n a s te r y in K y iv d io c e s e f o r a b o o k o n t h e s o u t h - R u s s i a n c h u r c h . 12 T h e f i r s t p u b l i s h e d f r u i t o f L e b e d y n t s e v 's h i s t o r i c a l r e s e a r c h w a s a le n g th y s e r ie s o f a r tic le s o n th e h is to r y o f B ila T s e r k v a , w h ic h a p p e a r e d in Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti i n 1 8 5 4 -5 5 . E s ta b lis h e d in fo r ty - tw o p r o v in c e s a c r o s s th e R u s s ia n E m p ir e in 1837 w it h th e r e la te d g o a ls o f b e tte r “k n o w in g ” a n d b e tte r a d m in is te r in g th e p ro v in c e s , th e s e p r o ­ v i n c i a l g a z e t t e s b e c a m e , i n t h e w o r d s o f C a t h e r i n e E v t u h o v , “t h e p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e f o r a n i n d e p e n d e n t p r o v i n c i a l c u l t u r a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s .” 13 W h e r e a s t h e “o f f i c i a l ” s e c t i o n o f t h e s e g a z e t t e s p u b l i s h e d g o v e r n m e n t d e c r e e s a n d a n n o u n c e m e n t s , t h e i r s u b s t a n t i a l “u n o f f i c i a l ” s e c t i o n s q u ic k ly d e v e lo p e d in to im p o r t a n t f o r a f o r lo c a l a u th o r s to w r ite a b o u t th e h is to ry , e th n o g r a p h y , e c o n o m y , g e o g r a p h y , a n d a r c h e o lo g y o f th e ir re g io n s . 14 Y et h is to r ia n s o f U k r a in e h a v e n o t m a d e s u ffic ie n t u s e o f th e s e im p o r ta n t v e n u e s fo r th e e x p re s s io n o f lo c a l id e n tity . F o r o u r p u r p o s e s , it is n o ta b le t h a t p r i e s t s ’ n a m e s f e a tu r e p r o m i n e n tly in th e pages o f Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, e s p e c ia lly in th e 1 8 5 0 s, a n d v ir tu a lly a ll o f th e m a n y d e s c r i p ti o n s o f v illa g e s a n d c o u n t y to w n s w e r e t h e w o r k o f t h e s e c l e r i c s . I n d e e d , i n a f o o t n o t e t o L e b e d y n t s e v ’s a r t i c l e , t h e e d i t o r a n n o u n c e d h i s d e s i r e t o e n l i s t “t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f e n l i g h t e n e d p a s to r s a n d e d u c a te d in h a b ita n ts ” to p u b lis h a rtic le s o n lo c a l to p ic s “t h a t m a y , a t a l a t e r t i m e , s e r v e a s m a t e r i a l s f o r s c h o l a r s h i p .” 1 5 H IS T O R Y , F A IT H , L e b e d y n t s e v ’s s e r i e s A N D R E G IO N A L ID E N T IT Y is a b i t o f a j u m b l e c h ro n o lo g ic a lly . It in c lu d e s th r e e b o th 3 4 7 th e m a tic a lly d iffe re n t title s , e a c h w ith an d m u ltip le p a r ts ; n e v e r th e le s s , it m a y b e c o n s id e r e d a s o n e c o m p le te w o r k b e c a u s e th e a r tic le s c o v e r a ll o f th e th a t p re fa c e d it is t h e o n e th e to p ic s p ro m is e d in th e ta b le o f c o n te n ts f ir s t i n s t a l l m e n t . T h is s e r ie s is s ig n if i c a n t b e c a u s e p la c e w h e r e L e b e d y n ts e v , in tra c in g th e h is to ry o f B ila T s e rk v a , o u tlin e d h is o v e ra ll u n d e r s ta n d in g o f th e h is to r y o f th e r e g io n h e c a lle d “U k r a in a ,” s o m e tim e s in th e s e n s e o f R ig h t-B a n k U k ra in e , b u t m o s t l y a n d m o r e s p e c if i c a l ly K y iv p r o v i n c e . U s i n g e v i d e n c e f r o m lo c a l c h ro n ic le s , a rc h iv e s (in c lu d in g U n ia te C h u r c h s o u rc e s ), a n d o ra l h is to ry , a n d o f te n in d ia lo g u e o v e r s o u r c e s a n d P o lis h -la n g u a g e p la c e d R o m an a c e n tu rie s -lo n g C a th o lic in te rp re ta tio n w ith a s t u d y o f B ila T s e r k v a p u b l i s h e d c o n fro n ta tio n w o rld s a t th e b e tw e e n in th e 1853, th e a rtic le O rth o d o x c e n te r o f its in te r p r e ta tio n , a n d an d th e t o w n o f B i l a T s e r k v a a t t h e c e n t e r o f “ U k r a i n i a n ” h i s t o r y . 16 L e b e d y n t s e v ’s f i r s t t a s k w a s t o d e m o n s t r a t e B i l a T s e r k v a ’s i m p o r ­ ta n c e w ith in “U k r a in e ” a n d to e s ta b lis h its p r im o r d ia lly O r th o d o x a n d R u s ' c h a r a c t e r . H e d e m o n s t r a t e d t h e t o w n ’s s t r a t e g i c s i g n i f i c a n c e “ i n t h e [ h is to r ic a l] p e r i o d s o f P o la n d a n d L ittle R u s s ia ,” a n d its i m p o r t a n c e as a tra d in g c e n te r in “U k r a in e .” A s a r e s u lt, it c h a n g e d h an d s m an y t i m e s , c o n s t i t u t i n g “a n a r e n a o f m i l i t a r y e v e n t s t h a t a f f e c t e d t h e f a t e o f a l l L i t t l e R u s s i a a s w e ll.” T h e p r e v i o u s y e a r , t h e P o l i s h n o b l e m a n a n d l o c a l h i s t o r i a n E d u a r d R u l i k o w s k i h a d a r g u e d t h a t t h e t o w n ’s f o u n d i n g d a te d to th e 1 5 5 0 s; in o t h e r w o r d s , to a p e r io d w h e n it h a d j u s t p a s s e d fro m T a ta r to P o lis h h a n d s a n d th u s w h e n th e r e g i o n ’s r e l i g i o u s a n d p o litic a l id e n tity w a s c o n te s te d . L e b e d y n ts e v , b y c o n tr a s t, c ritic iz e d R u l i k o w s k i ’s u s e o f s o u r c e s a n d ra llie d a ra n g e o f o th e r e v id e n c e to d e m o n s t r a te th e id e n tity o f th e K y iv a n R u s ' to w n o f I u r e v m e n tio n e d i n t h e p r i m a r y c h r o n i c l e a l o n g w i t h p r e s e n t - d a y B i l a T s e r k v a . 17 A re la te d k e y th e m e o f th e s e rie s w a s th e s tr u g g le to p r e s e r v e th e h e a lth o f th e n a tio n d u r in g tw o c e n tu r ie s o f re lig io u s s tru g g le . T h e n a t i o n is s o m e t i m e s r e f e r r e d to a s narod ( i n th e s e n s e o f th e c o m m o n p e o p le ) a n d s o m e t i m e s a s “ B ila T s e r k v a n s ,” a n d a lw a y s c h a r a c t e r i z e d in e x c lu s iv e ly r e lig io u s t e r m s a s O r t h o d o x . L e b e d y n t s e v to ld a ta le o f t e m p ta tio n a n d s a lv a tio n , in w h ic h th e lo c a l p e o p le s o m e tim e s b ra v e ly d e f e n d e d th e O r th o d o x y a t th e c o r e o f th e ir id e n tity , b u t a t o th e r tim e s f a i l e d t o d o s o . “A t t h e e n d o f t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y , ” h e w r o t e , “ h a v i n g f r e e d its e lf p a r tly f r o m th e ra v a g e s o f th e T a ta r s , U k r a in e to g e th e r w ith CO LEM A N 348 a ll o f L ittle R u s s ia e x p e r i e n c e d a m u c h g r e a t e r e x t e r n a l a n d i n t e r n a l c a la m ity f r o m th e U n io n , th o u g h t u p b y th e J e s u its a n d , u n d e r th e ir i n f l u e n c e , g i v i n g r i s e t o i n n u m e r a b l e d i s a s t e r s . ” 18 T h e O r t h o d o x p e o p l e r e s is te d , b u t th e y c o u ld a ls o b e b o u g h t o ff: H e e x p la in s h o w t h e P o le s g r a n t e d M a g d e b u r g r ig h t s to t h e lo c a l t o w n s p e o p le a n d C o s s a c k s in a n e f f o r t to q u e ll a n ti- P o lis h r e s is ta n c e a f te r th e U n io n o f B r e s t in 1596 c r e a t e d t h e U n ia t e C h u r c h , w h ic h p r e s e r v e d t h e E a s t e r n r i t e w h ile r e c o g n i z i n g t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e p o p e ; a l a s , t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f B ila T s e r k v a d id n o t a lw a y s “r e s o lv e to p r e f e r t h e h o ly F a ith to r o y a l p r iv i­ l e g e s " a n d f e l l i n t o t h i s t r a p t o d r a w U k r a i n e t o P o l a n d . 19 T h r o u g h o u t t h e r e s t o f t h e s e r ie s t h e C o s s a c k le a d e r s w e r e e v a lu a te d p r im a r ily in te r m s o f th e ir d e fe n s e o f O rth o d o x y . T h e b ra v e ry a n d s u ffe rin g o f th e fe w O r th o d o x p rie s ts w h o re s is te d p r e s s u re to c o n v e rt to th e U n ia te C h u r c h c o m p ris e d a n o th e r e n d u r in g th e m e . F o r e x a m p le , th e a r c h ­ p r i e s t V a s y l ' Z r a z h e v s 'k y i c l u n g t o O r t h o d o x y i n t h e 1 7 7 0 s a n d 1 7 8 0 s , s e r v in g , a c c o r d in g t o L e b e d y n ts e v , a s o n e o f th e m a in d e f e n d e r s o f th e “t h e n - d e f e n s e l e s s . . . O r t h o d o x p e o p l e ” ( p a r a l l e l i n g f a m i l y s t o r i e s a b o u t L e b e d y n t s e v s o w n g r a n d f a t h e r ) . 20 T h e m o r a l o f t h e s t o r y w a s o n e o f e v e n tu a l r e d e m p tio n , w h e n th e R u s s ia n s ta te r e tu r n e d O r th o d o x y [Russkikh] t o “t h e a n c i e n t R u s s ia n [.Rossii].”21 L e b e d y n t s e v t e r r i t o r i e s in t h e w e s t o f R u s s ia c o m b e d U n ia te v is ita tio n r e p o r ts a n d p a r is h a c c o u n t b o o k s fro m th e 1 780s a n d 1 7 90s to s h o w th a t th e c h u rc h e s o f B ila T s e r k v a h a d b e e n e m p t y a n d i n d i s r e p a i r o n t h e e v e o f t h e p a r titio n s o f P o la n d , a n d to c o n te n d th a t, w ith in th r e e y e a rs o f th e r e tu r n o f th o s e p a ris h e s to O r th o d o x y in J a n u a ry 1 8 9 6 , d o n a tio n s h a d d o u b le d a n d in s o m e c a s e s t r i p le d “f r o m t h e d il ig e n c e o f p a r is h io n e r s , w h o r e j o i c e d i n t h e r e t u r n t o O r t h o d o x y . ”22 T h e J e w s , w h o m L e b e d y n ts e v t e r m e d t h e “t y p i c a l w e a p o n o f t h e P o l e s ,” r e p r e s e n t e d a n o t h e r s o u r c e o f t h e p e o p l e s s u f f e r i n g . 23 A l t h o u g h h e d e p lo re d th e v io le n c e o f th e 1768 K o liiv s h c h y n a p e a s a n t u p r is in g a n d n o t e d t h a t B ila T s e r k v a w a s u n i q u e a m o n g t h e t o w n s o f t h e r e g i o n in h a v in g b e e n s p a r e d its fu ry , h e n e v e r t h e le s s w e n t o n to ju s tif y it a s t h e “r ig h tf u l p u n i s h m e n t o f G o d f o r th e lo n g s u f f e r in g o f t h e i n h a b ­ ita n ts o f U k ra in e a n d th e a b a s e m e n t o f C h ris tia n ity , v io la te d b y th e h a n d s o f th e Jew s [zhidy] in t h e v e r y h o ly r i t u a ls u n d e r t h e in f lu e n c e o f t h e U n ia te s .” A c c o r d in g to L e b e d y n ts e v , ir o n ic a lly t h e H a id a m a k a r e v o lts le d t h e n a tiv e p o p u la tio n to m ig r a te to t h e L e f t B a n k , a n d Je w s t o o k t h e i r p l a c e , “s u c k i n g o u t t h e l a s t j u i c e s o f t h e p o o r r e g i o n . ”24 H IS T O R Y , F A IT H , A N D R E G IO N A L ID E N T IT Y 349 H r u s h e v s 'k y i w a s c e r t a i n l y c o r r e c t i n s t a t i n g t h a t L e b e d y n t s e v w a s n e ith e r o rig in a l n o r a g r e a t s y s te m a tiz e r o f h is to r ic a l k n o w le d g e . H o w ­ e v e r, h e w a s a p io n e e r in s o u r c e c o lle c tio n a n d in b e g in n in g to th in k a b o u t t h e h i s t o r y o f K y iv p r o v i n c e a s a n h i s t o r i c a l r e g i o n in i t s o w n r i g h t . 25 I t i s w o r t h r e m e m b e r i n g h o w u n d e v e l o p e d h i s t o r i c a l w r i t i n g a b o u t R ig h t- B a n k U k r a in e w a s in th e m id - i8 s o s : T h e C o m m is s io n fo r th e A n a ly s is o f A n c ie n t D o c u m e n t s , f o u n d e d b y G o v e r n o r - G e n e r a l D . G . B ib ik o v a d e c a d e e a rlie r, h a d b e g u n c o lle c tin g d o c u m e n ts w ith a n e y e to re v e a lin g th e lo n g s ta n d in g “R u s s ia n ” c h a r a c te r o f th e r e g io n (a n d p r o v id in g d o c u m e n ta r y e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t o r d e n y P o lis h c la im s to n o b le s ta tu s ) , b u t its p u b lic a tio n s w e r e o n ly j u s t b e g in n in g to r e a c h th e p u b lic w h e n L e b e d y n ts e v w a s w ritin g . G e n e ra l h is to r ie s o f th e r e g io n a p p e a r e d o n ly in th e 1 8 6 0 s, a n d th e r e w e re n o p u b lis h e d s tu d ie s o f th e H a id a m a k a o r K o liiv s h c h y n a u p ris in g s , fo r in s ta n c e , u n til th e 1 8 7 0 s . 26 S e v e r a l t h e m e s e m e r g e d i n L e b e d y n t s e v ’s s t u d y o f B i l a T s e r k v a t h a t w o u l d a n i m a t e h is l o c a l h i s t o r y w o r k t h r o u g h o u t h is life . T h e c e n tr a l d r a m a fo r h im w a s th e r e lig io u s s tr u g g le ; th e s o u th w e s t r e g io n w a s in h e r e n tly O r th o d o x , a s w e r e its p e o p le w h o , fo r t h e ir fa ith , h a d lo n g s u f f e r e d a t t h e h a n d s o f r e lig io u s e n e m ie s , b o t h R o m a n C a t h ­ o lic a n d J e w is h ; th e O r t h o d o x c le r g y c o u ld c la im a lo n g h is to r y as d e fe n d e rs o f th is p e o p le ; a n d th is g r e a t s tru g g le w a s re s o lv e d th r o u g h in c o r p o r a tio n in to O r th o d o x R u s s ia . T h e s e th e m e s w e r e n o t n e c e s s a r ­ ily o r i g i n a l , i n a s m u c h a s t h e y r e h e a r s e d c e n t r a l p o i n t s o f w h a t F a it h H illis t e r m s “t h e L ittle R u s s ia n id e a ,” d e v e l o p e d b y t h e L e f t- B a n k U k r a in ia n C o s s a c k g e n t r y in th e f ir s t h a l f o f th e n in e t e e n t h c e n tu r y a n d im p o r t e d to t h e R ig h t B a n k , w h e n m a n y o f t h e m m o v e d th e r e to s t a f f t h e n e w l y R u s s i f i e d i n s t i t u t i o n s a f t e r t h e 1 8 3 0 - 3 1 P o l i s h r e v o l t . 27 L e b e d y n t s e v ’s e n g a g e m e n t w i t h t h e s e i d e a s p o i n t s t o a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r t o t h a t “ i d e a ’s ” i n c r e a s i n g l y p o p u l i s t t e n o r : t h e d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n L e f t- B a n k n o b le s a n d th e lo c a l, n o n - n o b le , U k r a in ia n e d u c a te d e lite o f th e s o u th w e s te r n p ro v in c e s . P a ris h p rie s ts , in p a rtic u la r, a s k e e p ­ e rs o f th e lo c a l c h u r c h a rc h iv e s th a t c o m m is s io n m e m b e r s c o n s u lte d a n d m o r e g e n e ra lly a s s o u r c e s o f lo c a l k n o w le d g e , s u re ly s e r v e d a s s ig n ific a n t in te r lo c u to r s , b rin g in g th e ir n a tiv is m a n d c o n s e rv a tiv e p o p u l i s m t o t h e t a b l e . 28 A f e w y e a r s la te r , i n 1 8 5 9 , L e b e d y n ts e v , w h o w a s s till in B ila T s e r k v a , e la b o r a te d h is u n d e r s ta n d in g o f R ig h t-B a n k h is to r y in a p o le m ic a l a r ti- 350 COLEM AN cle published in the O rthodox journal Dukhovnaia beseda (Spiritual Colloquy) and reprinted in slightly revised form as a booklet entitled A Few Words about Southwestern R us' in Kyiv that same year. Lebedyntsev wrote in response to some “letters from Poland,” published in the short-lived Slavophile new spaper Parus, which, to his mind, seem ed to treat southw est Russia as Polish territory. “To read these words now, when Southw estern R us' is once again one with N orth­ eastern [Rus'], is rather strange,” he writes. He goes on to assert both the ethnoreligious distinctiveness of the region and the kinship of its people with the Ruthenians across the A ustrian border: Since ancient times, Southwestern Rus' has been Rus', and it is Rus' now too; and its inhabitants are Rusichi or Rusiny (or perhaps Maldrosiane), except for a small number that ceased to call themselves rusichi [sic] and adopted Latinism in place of Orthodoxy and the Polish language in place of south-Russian. This is what the Rusyns in Galicia call themselves too; this is what even Polish historians call this region.29 But, history had taught that, “without Great Russian protection [egidy]” the religious and linguistic distinctiveness of the R us' would forever be threatened by their close proxim ity to Roman Catholic Poland. In his view, this protection did not m ean the absorption of one “tribe” into another; rather, south Russians preserved their identity through close alliance “with the Great Russian tribe, another form of one clan.” Otherwise, he warned, “once again the sad history of bloodletting that has marked unlucky southw estern Rus' since the time of the Union could be repeated.” To appreciate this fact, one had only to look at the response of the Poles to the Galician Ruthenians’ recent efforts to develop their w ritten language . 30 The article concludes with a plea to the Poles to cease regarding “the O rthodox Rusichi of this region as som ething nationless [beznarodnoe],” and to recognize, rather, that it was they, the Poles, who were visitors in the region and, “like a good guest, should reach out the hand of brotherhood and m utual love to their senior host.” 31 W hereas in the provincial gazette, the “O rthodox people” were relatively ill-defined, in this article Lebedyntsev em phasized that the “Rusichi” constituted a distinctive nation, w hich differed from the Poles not merely in term s of social class, but in their O rthodoxy and HISTO RY, FA ITH , A N D R E G IO N A L ID E N T IT Y 351 their ethnicity as well.32 Moreover, this nation was not w ithout its own elite. He noted that, especially near the D nipro, in his ow n area, there were num erous “O rthodox-R ussian” landow ners and th at “am ong the O rth o d o x clergy o f Southw estern R us' are m any noble su rn am es” about whose nobility docum ents could attest.33 His language reveals a distinctive “so u th w estern ” identity w ithin a b ro ad er “south Rus­ sian” one. The article treats exclusively the Right-Bank area (known bureaucratically as the Southw estern Region of the Russian Empire since 1832) and uses specific evidence from Kyiv province. The region is consistently called “southw estern Rus'.” For the m ost p art he calls its inhabitants “Rusichi,” occasionally the “southern Rus',” w ith only a single, reluctant nod to the term malorosiane (Little Russians) as a possible synonym. They are equated not w ith the G reat Russians to the north but w ith the Rusyns to the west. Thus, although his rejoinder was directed at the Poles, it also sent a message to his Russian readers about the separate identity of southw estern Russians and the value of that identity. Indeed, the G reat Russians, too, m ight be expected to recognize the ancient claim of the “Rusichi” to this territory. Lebedyntsev w rote u n d er the suggestive pseudonym “Iuzhnoruss.” The character of his argum ent reinforces David Saunders’s view that for nineteenth-century Ukrainians to describe their hom eland as southern R us' and its population as “iuzhnorusskie" was not to “indicate that their local culture was a provincial version of Russian culture.” O n the contrary, “they were claim ing full citizenship in a com m onw ealth which, in the m edieval period, they could be said to have directed.”34 In the late 1850s and early 1860s Lebedyntsev, together w ith his bro th er Feofan, a young sem inary teacher in Kyiv, was an active p ar­ ticipant in—and, indeed, a pioneer of—the pastoral care m ovem ent within the Russian O rthodox parish clergy. The Lebedyntsev brothers em braced the m ovem ent’s vision of an activist priesthood, one that was socially engaged and which sought to enliven parishioners’ reli­ gious experience by developing inform ed piety am ong them .35 And, significantly, the active correspondence betw een Petro and Feofan, and the content of the journals they w ould w rite for and edit in the early 1860s, reveal the close relationship betw een their pastoral am bitions and their local patriotism . This connection em erges in Petro’s frequent letters to Feofan in the late 1850s, a correspondence th at breaks off in mid-1860 w hen 352 CO LEM A N P e t r o m o v e d t o K y iv , b u t t h e n r e s u m e d in m i d - 1 8 6 4 , w h e n F e o f a n a c c e p t e d a p o s i t i o n in K h o l m a s s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f R u s s i a n e d u c a ­ t i o n . T h e b r o t h e r s w e r e v e r y i n t e r e s t e d in r e s e a r c h i n g t h e r e l i g i o u s h i s t o r y o f t h e i r r e g i o n a n d in u s i n g s u c h p r e c e d e n t s a s t h e O r t h o d o x b r o th e r h o o d s o f th e e a rly m o d e r n p e r io d a s m o d e ls fo r c o n g re g a tio n a l r e n e w a l . 36 L e b e d y n t s e v m a y h a v e s e e n h i m s e l f a s in v o l v e d in a f ig h t a g a i n s t C a t h o l i c i s m , b u t h e f o u g h t f ir e w i t h f ir e : H e r e a d w id e l y in th e b r o a d e r E u ro p e a n p re ss, o rd e rin g G e r m a n a n d F re n c h w o rk s o n p a s to ra l c a re a n d s e r m o n p r e p a r a tio n a n d g a in in g in s p ir a tio n fro m t h e R o m a n C a t h o l i c i n t e r n a l m i s s i o n s in c o u n t r i e s t o t h e w e s t . 37 A n im p o r ta n t le s s o n th a t h e d re w fro m th is re a d in g w a s th a t p e o p le n e e d e d t o b e r e a c h e d i n t h e i r n a t iv e l a n g u a g e s . 38 O n 14 D e c e m b e r 1858 P e tro w ro te , “I c o p ie d o u t o f Allg[emeine].-Zeitung t h a t in H u n g a r y t h e y p u b l i s h s p i r i t u a l p a m p h l e t s in t h e M a g y a r a n d S lo v a k d i a l e c t s [narechiiakh] fo r P r o te s ta n ts . I r e m e m b e r e d t h a t h e r e to o a re lig io u s m a g a z i n e h a s s t a r t e d t o a p p e a r in t h e L a t v i a n d i a l e c t . . . . W h y c o u l d w e n o t h a v e a r e lig io u s jo u r n a l in th e L ittle R u s s ia n la n g u a g e , a n d w h y n o t p u b l i s h it a t t h e K y iv S e m i n a r y , w h i c h h a s s o m a n y U k r a i ­ n i a n s [khokhlov ] o n t h e c u r r e n t t e a c h i n g s ta f f ? T h o s e p o o r s e r m o n s o f G r e c h u l e v i c h in L i tt l e R u s s ia n liv e d t o s e e a s e c o n d e d i t i o n ; t h a t is t h e b e s t p r o o f t h a t a L i t t l e R u s s i a n r e l i g i o u s j o u r n a l w o u l d e n j o y success. Voskresnoe Chtenie [a S t. P e t e r s b u r g s p i r i t u a l m a g a z i n e ] is p o o r l y d i s p e r s e d a r o u n d L i tt l e R u s s ia ; it is c le a r , t h a t s h e [ L it tl e R u s ­ s ia ] n e e d s a n a t i o n a l - r e l i g i o u s j o u r n a l . A f t e r a ll, t h e r e a r e m o r e L i tt l e R u s s ia n s t h a n L a t v i a n s — 1 2 , 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 ! O n ly ! A n d t h e l a n g u a g e is p u r e r t h a n L a tv ia n ...” A s h e w r o te a n d im a g in e d th e f u tu r e m a g a z in e , h e b e c a m e m o r e a n d m o r e e x c ite d , u r g in g F e o fa n to c a ll a m e e tin g o f in te r e s te d p e o p le , p r o p o s in g v a rio u s n a m e s a n d p o te n tia l c o n te n t fo r th e jo u r n a l, u n c h a r a c te r is tic a lly p e p p e r in g h is te x t w ith U k r a in ia n w o rd s (a b o u t th e karbovantsi [ m o n e y ] t h a t w e r e n e e d e d , f o r i n s ta n c e ) , a n d p r o m o t i n g h is p l a n t o b y p a s s t h e K y iv T h e o l o g ic a l A c a d e m y : “T h e A c a d e m y w o u ld p r e v e n t y o u f r o m p u b l i s h i n g a n y o t h e r s o r t o f j o u r n a l , s i n c e i t h a s t w o o f i t s o w n in t h e G r e a t R u s s ia n d ia le c t , ” h e w r o t e . H e a ls o r e v e a l e d t h a t h e r e g a r d e d t h e p r o j e c t a s a U k r a i n o p h i l e o n e w h e n h e e n t h u s e d , “A n d h o w m u c h h o n o r w o u ld t h e K y iv S e m i n a r y g e t f r o m M o r c h e n k o , S r e z n e v s k i i a n d K u ly s h [sic], S h e v c h e n k o , G u la k -A rte - m o v s k ii , a n d o t h e r s ! ”39 H e r e w e s e e q u i t e c l e a r l y a b r o a d e r i d e n t i t y t h a t c r o s s e d t h e D n i p r o R iv e r t o e n c o m p a s s a ll “L i ttl e R u s s ia ” ( a n d n o t H IS T O R Y , F A IT H , A N D R E G IO N A L ID E N T IT Y 353 ju s t th e s o u th w e s t) a n d a b e lie f th a t th is id e n tity c o u ld a n d s h o u ld b e d ra w n u p o n in th e c a u s e o f s p iritu a l e n lig h te n m e n t. F e o fa n w a s n o t s u c c e s s fu l in p e r s u a d in g h is s u p e r io r s to b a c k th e id e a o f a U k r a in ia n - la n g u a g e r e lig io u s jo u r n a l. In a le t t e r w r itt e n te n d a y s la te r P e tr o e x p r e s s e d b o th h is d is a p p o in tm e n t in h is fe llo w U k r a i­ n ia n s a n d h is d e te r m in a tio n to c o n tin u e o n th e p a th o f c u ltu r a lly s e n s i­ t i v e p a s t o r a l w o r k : “A n d h e r e I t h o u g h t t h a t y o u w e r e a l l U k r a i n i a n s a t t h e s e m in a r y ; in d e e d , e v e n F a th e r F e o k tis t is c o n s id e r e d d e e p ly L ittle [glubokim Malorosom ] . M y s u g g e s t i o n w a s t h e [uvlechen 'e narodnoe ] i n s p i r e d b y l o o k i n g a t w h a t i s R u s s ia n in h is v ie w s p e o p l e ’s p a s s i o n d o n e i n o t h e r p l a c e s . M a y G o d g r a n t t h a t s o m e d a y i t w i l l b e r e a l i z e d ! ”40 A l t h o u g h L e b e d y n t s e v w o u ld n o t liv e t o s e e a U k r a i n i a n - l a n g u a g e r e l i g i o u s j o u r n a l i n K y iv , i n t h e n e x t t w o y e a r s h e a n d h i s b r o t h e r w o u l d b e in s t r u m e n t a l in th e a p p e a r a n c e o f tw o lo c a l r e lig io u s p u b lic a tio n s t h a t p u r s u e d , v ia th e R u s s ia n la n g u a g e , t h e g o a ls o f th e p a s to r a l c a r e m o v e m e n t th r o u g h a tte n tio n to lo c a l c u ltu re . T h e firs t o f th e s e w a s Rukovodstvo dlia sel'skikh pastyrei (A M a n u a l f o r V illa g e P a s to r s ) , w h ic h w a s d e s tin e d to r e m a in a le a d in g p a s to r a l c a re jo u r n a l r ig h t u p t o t h e r e v o l u t i o n . I t b e g a n p u b l i c a t i o n in M a r c h i 8 6 0 a t t h e K y iv S e m ­ in a ry , a n d w a s e d i te d ( to g e th e r w ith a f ig u r e h e a d c o - e d ito r ) b y F e o fa n L e b e d y n ts e v . P e tr o to o k a g r e a t in t e r e s t in t h e jo u r n a l, r e f e r r in g to it in a l e t t e r to F e o f a n a s “y o u r a n d o u r m a g a z in e ” a n d c o n t e m p la tin g e x c ite d ly h o w it c o u ld b e a m e a n s f o r e x c h a n g in g i n f o r m a tio n a m o n g t h e c l e r g y o f K y iv d i o c e s e . P e t r o c o n t r i b u t e d n u m e r o u s a r t i c l e s t o Rukovodstvo s firs t v o lu m e a n d p la n n e d a s e rie s o f d o c u m e n t p u b li­ c a t i o n s t h a t t o g e t h e r , h e w r o t e t o h is b r o t h e r , w o u l d r e v e a l “t h e w h o le h i s t o r y o f t h e U k r a i n i a n c h u r c h i n t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y . ”41 L e b e d y n t s e v ’s c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o Rukovodstvo r e v o lv e d a r o u n d h is in te r e s ts in p a s to r a l w o r k a n d p r im a r y e d u c a tio n , a s w e ll a s th e h is to r y o f t h e c l e r g y in K y iv d io c e s e . H e s o u g h t c o n s i s t e n t l y t o d e l i n e a t e t h e p a r tic u la r itie s o f th e re g io n a n d to d ra w o n b o th lo c a l tr a d itio n s a n d f o r e ig n m o d e ls to a s s e r t t h a t R u s s ia n s o lu tio n s c o u ld n o t s im p ly b e a p p l i e d w h o l e s a l e t o t h e K y iv d io c e s e . F o r e x a m p l e , in o n e a r t i c l e h e w r o te a p p r o v in g ly o f a S ile s ia n p r ie s t w h o h a d o p e n e d a te a r o o m , e x p r e s s in g th e h o p e t h a t h is c o lle a g u e s w o u ld f o llo w s u it. T h e ta v e r n , h e w r o t e , “ in t h e v ill a g e i n s o u t h R u s s ia is a v illa g e c l u b . . . t h a t a i d s t h e d e v e l o p m e n t . . . o f p o p u l a r l i f e m u c h m o r e t h a n P e t e r [ I ] ’s a s s e m b l i e s a n d m o d e r n c lu b s .... R ig h t h e r e in f r o n t o f th e t a v e r n n o t s o lo n g a g o 354 COLEMAN both the so-called hromada, or mir, meetings of elders elected from society, who were called the sud'tsami, took place. So much good, it would seem, could be instilled in this institution in south-Russian settlements!” As Lebedyntsev suggested, pastors needed to transform present-day taverns from the places of depravity they had become, to turn them “into Christian hostels from Jewish [zhidovskikh] ones, as they have been up to now .”42 This account reflected a local patriotic populism and also expressed the related anti-Semitism that we have seen when he outlined his understanding of the history of the region as one of oppression by religious “Others." Another of Lebedyntsev's articles in that first year of Rukovodstvo combined his interest in primary education with his religious and local commitments. As one of the pioneers in establishing village church primary schools in the Russian Empire, Lebedyntsev weighed in on the raging debate over whether children should be first taught to read Church Slavonic or Russian. To those who argued that Russians should “first know how to read in their natural language,” he responded that this was far from the obvious solution in Kyiv province. “[T]he Russian literary language,” he wrote, “is not yet the folk language [narodnyi iazyk ], [and] the Russian folk language is only the language of the majority of Russian subjects, but it is not the natural language of the twelve million russkov [sic] who populate the southwestern regions of Russia, for whom the language of the liturgy is more comprehensible than that of the sermons.” He went on to argue that if the goal of education was the religious and moral development of the people, it was best to start, as had been the tradition in the southwest for cen­ turies, with the primer published by the Kyiv Caves Monastery, from which children learned to read by studying the main prayers of the church. It would then be easy for children to apply their reading skill to the Russian primer .43 Nowhere does Lebedyntsev appear to have questioned the use of Russian as a literary language. Indeed, in the brochure version of his A Few Words about Southwestern Rus ',” he had added the statement that the “three tribes of the one Russian family” should share Russian as a common literary language, but as a teacher and a pastor he looked for the best way to ensure that the members of his flock understood what they were hearing and reading .44 Finally, just as he had promised Feofan, Lebedyntsev used the pages of Rukovodstvo to bring to light the history of the “Ukrainian” H ISTO R Y , F A IT H , A N D R E G IO N A L ID E N T IT Y 355 (m e a n in g Kyiv p ro v in c e ) c h u r c h a n d its clerg y . In th e s e c o n d issu e o f t h e jo u r n a l h e p u b lis h e d a n d c o m m e n te d o n a n a r r a tiv e o f th e h a ir-r a is in g to r t u r e a n d e x e c u tio n o f a n O r th o d o x c h u rc h elder, D a niil K u sh n ir, in th e to w n o f M li'iv in 1766 fo r re je c tin g th e U n ia te fa ith . 4 5 H e a lso c o n tr ib u te d a le n g th y a n d g r o u n d - b r e a k in g a rtic le a n a ly z in g so u rc e s o f fin a n c ia l s u p p o r t fo r th e p a ris h c lergy o f Kyiv d io c e se in th e p r e v io u s c e n tu ry . T h r o u g h th is le n s, a n d d ra w in g o n a w id e ra n g e o f p r im a r y s o u rc e s , L e b e d y n ts e v illu m in a te d th e u n iq u e e x p e rie n c e s o f th e lo c a l c lerg y a n d h o w th e y h a d s h a p e d th e ir liv in g c o n d itio n s a n d c u ltu re . A n i m p o r ta n t th e m e w a s th e s u c c e sse s b u t a lso th e fa ilu re s o f R u ssian policy. T h u s, a lth o u g h h e p ra is e d N ic h o la s I to th e skies for in tr o d u c in g sa la ry s u p p le m e n ts fo r p a ris h p rie s ts in th e re g io n in 1842, h is a rtic le a im e d also to sh o w th a t, w ith o u t in d e x in g w a ges to inflatio n , th e lo c a l c lerg y ris k e d re v e rtin g to a s ta te in w h ic h it w o u ld b e u n a b le to p e r f o r m its le a d e r s h ip ro le in lo c a l so c ie ty ; m o re o v e r, h e h in te d t h a t th e a c c o m p a n y in g p r o v is io n (1842) th a t p a r is h io n e r s w o rk th e la n d fo r th e ir p r ie s ts h a d g e n e r a te d c o n sid e ra b le r e s e n tm e n t . 4 6 T h ese a rtic le s c o n tr ib u te d to L e b e d y n ts e v ’s n a rr a tiv e o f th e c o n flic t b e tw e e n O r th o d o x a n d U n ia te C h r is tia n ity in th e re g io n , th e m a r ty r d o m o f c le rg y m e n w h o h a d re siste d c h u rc h u n io n , a n d th e n e e d to a d d re ss th e sp e c ia l in te r e s ts o f th o s e p rie s ts fo r th e g o o d o f th e re g io n a s a w h o le. T h e fo llo w in g year, in 1861, Kyiv b e c a m e th e s e c o n d d io c e se in th e R u ssia n E m p ire to fo u n d a n official d io c e s a n g a z e tte , Kievskie eparkhial 'nye vedomosti. Its c o -e d ito r (initially) a n d th e n sole e d ito r w as P etro L eb e d y n tse v , w h o h a d m o v e d to Kyiv in m id -1 8 6 0 . U n til h e gav e u p th e e d i t o r ’s p o s t in 1874, L e b e d y n ts e v u s e d th is g a z e tte to p u rs u e h is p r o g r a m o f p r o m o tin g th e in te r e s ts o f th e c lerg y a n d illu m in a tin g th e lo c a l re lig io u s h is to r y o f Kyiv p ro v in c e , in th e p ro c e ss g a rn e rin g b o th p ra ise a n d c ritic is m fo r h is a p p ro a c h . Kievskie eparkhial 'nye vedomosti d re w a c c la im fo r th e q u a lity o f its a rtic le s a n d b e c a m e re q u ir e d r e a d in g fo r p e o p le in te r e s te d in th e h is to ry a n d c u ltu re o f th e s o u th w e s t re g io n o f th e R u ssia n E m p ire .47 L e b e d y n ts e v b o th so lic ite d a rtic le s d e a lin g w ith lo c al h is to ry a n d t r a ­ d itio n — fo r e x am p le , th e w e ll-k n o w n s c h o la r o f U k ra in ia n la n g u a g e a n d fo lk lo re M y k h ailo M a k sy m o v y c h c o n tr ib u te d n u m e r o u s s tu d ie s o f lo c a l h is to r y a n d a rc h e o lo g y — a n d w ro te m a n y h im se lf.48 In fact, in a n 1866 le tte r to M a k s y m o v y c h , h e e v e n r e f e r r e d to th e “u n o ffi­ c ia l” s e c tio n o f th e g a z e tte , w h ic h p u b lis h e d s e r m o n s , n e w s, lo c a l 356 COLEMAN reports, obituaries, and articles on various topics of interest to the diocesan clergy, as the “historical section .”49 Thus, as if to emphasize the importance of basic historical knowledge for the dawning era of communication among priests of the diocese, in the very first issue Lebedyntsev published a survey of the boundaries of Kyiv diocese from the Kyivan Rus' era to the present. That issue also featured an article on St. Andrew’s Church in Kyiv and its significance, and a moving tribute by Lebedyntsev to his recently deceased colleague, Archpriest Mykhailo Dashkevych of Berdychiv, whom he portrayed as the ideal Kyiv diocese pastor: culturally close to the local people, a faithful ser­ vant of the diocese, beloved by local Roman Catholics and Jews, a fine preacher, a student of the history of his region, and contributor to the provincial gazette .50 He also provided information about distinctive local rituals, examining their origins and Justifying their legitimate Orthodox pedigree .51 This section may have garnered much praise, but Lebedyntsev would also fight criticism from some parish priests for its being too scholarly and historical in its emphases .52 Lebedyntsev’s historical work through the diocesan gazette con­ stituted a component of a broader drive for the “historical-statistical description” of Kyiv diocese that he spearheaded. Beginning in the 1850s, committees to gather local historical information and describe churches and other religious antiquities of the province were estab­ lished in dioceses throughout the em pire .53 As in many areas, the Kyiv Diocesan Committee did not accomplish much, but Lebedynt­ sev would serve as the driving force, beginning in 1866, of efforts to renew this work, secure funding from the diocesan authorities, and stimulate local parish priests to participate .54 Also in the early 1860s Lebedyntsev launched studies of Kyivan R us'-era churches in Kyiv and began lobbying for the restoration of their original frescoes, for which he would be renowned .55 He also pursued related goals of record­ ing the ethnography and history of his province as a member of the committee to plan Kyiv province’s contribution to the 1867 Moscow Ethnographic Exposition, as a member of the Southern Branch of the Russian Geographic Society from 1873 to 1876, and as a leader of the Kyiv Church-Archeological Society from its founding in 1872 until his death .56 He also participated actively in the major public history project of his era, the erection of a monument to the Cossack leader Bohdan KhmeTnyts'kyi on St. Sophia Square .57 H ISTO R Y , F A ITH , A N D R E G IO N A L ID E N T IT Y 357 I n th is s a m e p e r i o d L e b e d y n ts e v b e c a m e in c r e a s in g ly p r o m i ­ n e n t in d io c e s a n a ffa irs a n d , in d e e d , in t h e R u s s ia n O r t h o d o x C h u r c h n a tio n a lly . I n a d d i t i o n t o th e in f lu e n c e h e e x e r t e d a s e d i t o r o f th e d io c e s a n n e w s p a p e r , h e w a s p r o m o t e d to a r c h p r i e s t in 1861, s e r v e d a s d e a n o f t h e P o d il d i s t r i c t c h u r c h e s f r o m 1861 to 1863 a n d a s th e p r ie s t o f t h e G o v e r n o r - G e n e r a l’s r e s id e n tia l c h u r c h f r o m 1864 u n til 1868, w h e n h e w a s a p p o i n te d r e c t o r o f S t. S o p h ia ’s a n d th u s th e l e a d ­ in g p a r is h (a s o p p o s e d to m o n a s tic ) c le r g y m a n in th e p r o v in c e . A s a m e m b e r o f t h e K yiv d io c e s a n c o n s is to r y b o a r d f r o m 1863 u n ti l h is d e a th , h e p la y e d a c e n tr a l ro le in th e a d m in is tr a t io n o f th e d io c e s e a n d s e r v e d o n a h u g e n u m b e r o f d io c e s a n c o m m itte e s . L e b e d y n ts e v a lso s p e n t c o n s id e r a b le ti m e in St. P e te r s b u r g ( w h e r e h e t o o k a d v a n ta g e o f t h e S y n o d a rc h iv e s ), w h e n h e s e r v e d a s a p r o m i n e n t m e m b e r o f t h e S y n o d c o m m it te e t h a t re v ie w e d th e c h u r c h le g a l s y s te m b e tw e e n 1870 a n d 1873. In 1888 T s a r A le x a n d e r III b e s to w e d u p o n th e a lre a d y m u c h - d e c o r a te d L e b e d y n ts e v th e e x tre m e ly r a r e h o n o r o f a m ite r .58 T h is ris e to p r o m i n e n c e is a ll th e m o r e s u r p r is in g b e c a u s e it c o in ­ c id e d w ith M e t r o p o l ita n A r s e n ii’s (M o s k v in ) a d m in is tr a t io n o f K yiv d io c e s e f r o m i8 6 0 to 1876. T h e m e tr o p o li ta n w a s k n o w n to d is lik e th e lo c a l K yiv c le r g y fo r t h e ir a lle g e d “J e s u itis m ” a n d to h a v e b e e n a d v is e d to h ir e G r e a t R u s s ia n s t o a d d r e s s t h e p r o b le m in t h e d io c e s e . 59 Y et L e b e d y n ts e v w a s k n o w n a s “t h e t r u s t e d p e r s o n a n d f a v o r ite o w in g to h is m e r i ts o f M e t r o p o l ita n A r s e n ii .” 60 C e r ta in ly , th e m e tr o p o li ta n e n t r u s t e d h u g e a u t h o r i ty in L e b e d y n ts e v a n d c o r r e s p o n d e d w ith h im r e g u la r ly a n d in a w id e - r a n g in g m a n n e r d u r in g h is le n g th y s ta y s in St. P e te r s b u r g to p a r ti c ip a te in s y n o d m e e tin g s . L e b e d y n ts e v w a s c le a rly h is s o u n d in g b o a r d a n d “r ig h t - h a n d m a n .” 61 S im ila rly , t h e G o v e r n o r - G e n e r a l o f t h e S o u t h w e s t e r n R e g io n , w h o m L e b e d y n ts e v s e r v e d a s p r ie s t o f th e g o v e r n o r ’s re s id e n tia l c h u r c h b e t w e e n 1864 a n d 1868, w a s A le k s a n d r P. B e z a k . B e z a k s u g g e s te d in h is a n n u a l r e p o r t fo r 1865 t h a t th e lo c a l c le rg y w a s s im p ly n o t u p to th e ta s k o f p r o p e r ly R u s s if y in g th e r e g io n . I n d e e d , h e r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t c le r g y m e n f r o m G r e a t R u s s ia n d io c e s e s b e im p o r t e d to p r o v id e m o d e ls o f p r o p e r O r th o d o x y to lo c a l p r ie s t s in f e c te d b y U n ia te p r a c ­ tic e s a n d P o lis h c u ltu r e .62 H o w e v e r, L e b e d y n ts e v e x e r te d c o n s id e r a b le in f lu e n c e o v e r B e z a k in th i s p o s iti o n .63 F o r e x a m p le , h e p e r s u a d e d th e G o v e r n o r - G e n e r a l t h a t r e f o r m o f th e c le r ic a l e s ta te w a s c r itic a l to th e s u c c e s s f u l R u s s if ic a tio n o f t h e S o u th w e s te r n R e g io n , a r g u in g 358 COLEMAN that if the government granted secular legal status to the children of clergymen, this would eliminate legal impediments to a career in the civil service and provide “Russians” for staffing the local administration in the borderlands. Subsequently, he drafted the proposal that Bezak took to St. Petersburg in the fall of 1867 and which became the basis for a reform of the entire clerical estate throughout the Russian Empire in 1868.64 Yet, despite his proximity to the leading officials of the province, Lebedyntsev clearly continued to promote many of the views he had developed as a young priest in Bila Tserkva. In 1863, for example, when the editor of Vestnik Iugo-zapadnoi Rossii Ksenofont Govorskii crit­ icized Kievskie eparkhial 'nye vedomosti for expressing Ukrainophile views, Lebedyntsev, as editor, responded to what he saw as a slight to local identity. He opened his rebuttal by equating Ukrainophilia with khlopomanstvo, the Ukrainian intelligentsia’s fascination with the peasantry and dismissing both as too radical. But he defended the views that he and others had expressed in the journal, arguing, for instance, that it was a statement of fact rather than a sin to suggest, as his brother Feofan had done in a recent obituary, that long ago the south had colonized the north intellectually and now that process had been reversed. He rejected Govorskii’s demand that he use the term Little Russia instead of Ukraine to describe the region, insisting that the Right Bank had never been part of Little Russia. Furthermore, he criticized Govorskii for his “disdain for all that is south-Russian and especially for the language of the peasants, which he finds vulgar, unable even to express religious ideas.” He went on to say that if Gov­ orskii thought that by denigrating the Ukrainian language he would be creating love of the Russian language, he was mistaken: “Russian is our literary language, first worked out in Kiev and by Kiev scholars, and there is no thought of refusing it,” he wrote. “You may fight against the khlopomany, but do not make fun of the language of our simple people, who are devoted to the Russian tsar and our fatherland. For love of one’s native language, no matter how simple, is in each of us,” he concluded.65 Here, Lebedyntsev combined his strong “Ukrainian” (southwest Russian) patriotism with a defense of an all-Russian iden­ tity that included the Kyivan one. In the late 1860s questions continued to be raised about whether local clergymen were capable of reclaiming the southwest for Ortho- H IS TO R Y , F A I T H , A N D R E G I O N A L I D E N T I T Y 359 dox Russia or should themselves be the object of Russifying measures. One widely circulated pamphlet reiterated the call for “native Russian clergy” to be imported to the region to show the local clergy how to “be Russian,” accusing the southwestern clergy of being Polonized former Uniates, ignorant of proper Orthodox practice.66 In a lengthy, unsigned article that sounds very much like Lebedyntsev, Kievskie eparkhial 'nye vedomosti took on this accusation. It refuted the charge that the majority of the 1,300 priests of Kyiv diocese had been born in the Uniate faith; it mocked the idea that the clergy spoke Polish with their families; and it categorically rejected the notion that Uniates were “pure Poles.” On the contrary, the author sought to show that membership in the Uniate Church did not imply a “renunciation of Russian nationality.” This was a delicate—indeed, risky— argument, since Russia’s “liberation” of the regions people from Polonization was the received interpretation. Thus, the author used historical examples of resistance to conversion in the eighteenth century, and of priests who had been persecuted for their alleged sympathy for Russia and its church, in order to show that Kyivites had remained Orthodox in spirit. For this reason, they and their priests eagerly returned to Orthodoxy after the defeat of the Poles. The article ended with a series of rather pointed arguments about why the southwestern clergy did not need a mission from central Russia. The author wrote about the importance of local knowledge for good pastoral work. At the same time, he insisted that the differences between the Great Russian and Little Russian rituals were minor and could not be attributed to Polish influence; after all, it was southerners who had gone to Muscovy to purify church rituals there in the seventeenth century, not vice versa. Finally, he noted that when Great Russian priests had been dispatched to Minsk diocese to convert the Uniates in 1794, they were promptly sent home as ineffective.67 Thus, Lebedyntsev s journal sought to assert the legitimacy of local Orthodoxy and to defend the local clergy and their pastorally valuable local knowledge. Indeed, Lebedyntsev achieved his prom inence and influence through a combination of his extraordinary abilities and local knowl­ edge. He was successful in connecting the defense of the interests of the local clergy to the government’s policies to Russify the adminis­ tration and society of the Southwest Region. With his deep knowledge of local circumstances, he was able to argue persuasively for policies 36 o COLEMAN that advanced the interests of clergymen (and their sons) in the region and to assert their critical role in local communities. For example, in some posthumously published memoirs he portrayed himself as able to be effective in working to stem the 1855 peasant revolt (in contrast to the noble Russian officials who accompanied him) because he was not afraid of the peasants and spoke their language; furthermore, he claimed that, based on personal experience of the uprising, he had been able to persuade Bezak to change the manner in which clergy were compensated.68 The defense of the local parish clergy and expression of local (and broader Ukrainian) identity remained a feature of his work within the Consistory as well. Thus, in July 1881, in the wake of the assassination of Alexander II, the governor of Kyiv asked the diocesan authorities to draft measures to increase the authority of the parish clergy over the village population. The Kyiv Spiritual Consistory approved a plan, drafted by Lebedyntsev, that, in addition to calling for support for their spiritual endeavors, the abolition of Sunday markets, greater regula­ tion of taverns and conditions at sugar factories, and the enforcement of laws forbidding Jews to engage in the liquor trade, also asserted that pastoral authority could be achieved only by giving the priest greater influence within the village community (such as the right to veto the election of volost' elders and clerks) and strengthening the local clergy’s role in supervising parish schools. Interestingly, in the case of the latter demand to choose school inspectors from among the parish priests of each district, the resolution added “thereby according the Ortho­ dox clergy if only that [level of] trust that the Uniate clergy in Galicia enjoys from the Austrian government.” In this way, Lebedyntsev and his fellow consistory members reminded the metropolitan that they were aware of the conditions of their regional cousins across the local border and asserted their right to similar local authority.69 The Ukrainian statesman Oleksander Lotots 'kyi, recalling his stu­ dent days at the Kyiv Theological Academy in the 1890s, bemoaned the Russified character of Kyiv clergymen and the lack of ethnic Ukrainians in prominent positions in the church. One exception was Lebedyntsev, then the elderly and formidable dean of St. Sophia Cathedral. But, in Lotots 'kyi’s view, “he hardly betrayed his Ukrainian sympathies—except when he published a work about the first Kyiv metropolitan under a pseudonym in [the Ukrainophile local history H IST O R Y , F A IT H , A N D R E G IO N A L ID E N T IT Y 361 jo u rn al] Kievskaia starina '.’70 L o to ts 'k y i w as rig h t w h en h e im p lied th a t m o s t o f L e b e d y n tse v ’s p u b lish e d h isto ric a l w o rk d e a lt w ith th e d is ta n t p a s t a n d w as sig n e d by in itia ls o r p s e u d o n y m s .71 L e b e d y n tse v to o k a p a rtic u la r in te re s t in th e a n c ie n t h is to ry o f Kyiv an d , as w e have seen , o v ersaw ex ten siv e re s to ra tio n w o rk a t St. S o p h ia s, w h ich p ro v id e d th e s u b je c t o f m u c h o f h is re se a rc h . It is clear, how ev er, th a t L o to ts 'k y i h a d n o t re a d Kievskaia starina v ery carefully, fo r h e w o u ld also have n o tic e d sev eral q u ite p a s s io n a te a rtic le s a b o u t to p ic s c o n c e rn in g th e m o re c o n te n tio u s re c e n t lo cal p ast, in c lu d in g sev eral th a t w ere sig n ed “P ro t. P. L-v.” O n e, for exam ple, d e a lt w ith T aras S h ev c h e n k o ’s fu n eral, a t w h ic h h e h a d se rv e d , a n d L e b e d y n tse v m a d e n o p a rtic u la r a tte m p t to co n c e a l h is id e n tity .72 In d e e d , L e b e d y n ts e v ’s c o n trib u tio n s in th e 1880s (w h en h is b r o th e r F eo fan s e rv e d as ed ito r, a fte r P e tro h im se lf h a d refu sed th e job), re h e a rse d th e th e m e s th a t h a d u n ified his w ritin g s as a y o u n g e r m a n in th e 1850s a n d early 1860s: th e d e fe n se o f th e local clergy, th e m a rty rd o m o f p rie s ts, th e ir c lo se n e ss to th e p eo p le, a n d th e th r e a t th a t th e a lien Jew s a n d P oles p r e s e n te d to th e w ell-b e in g o f th e re g io n a n d its p e o p le .73 T h u s, in 1884, in th e a u to b io g ra p h ic a l in tro d u c tio n to a se rie s o f o ra l h is to rie s h e h a d c o lle c te d as a p rie s t in Bila T serkv a, L eb e d y n tsev d e s c rib e d h o w h e h a d b e c o m e in te re s te d in reco v e rin g a “R ussian” p a s t seem in g ly o b lite ra te d by Polish a n d Jew ish d o m in a tio n . W h e n h e a rriv e d in Bila T serk v a in th e 1850s, th e to w n le ft h im w ith a “s tra n g e , o p p re ssiv e im p ressio n .” H e w ro te: To a passer-by, this ancient Cossack stronghold would seem like nothing bu t a small Polish-Jewish (pol'sko-zhidovskim) town. No m onum ents or traces of its earlier Russian life rem ained. W here once, according to legend, had stood the first Russian church, a Roman Catholic church stood in splendor; ...o f the castle, one could barely see the rem nants of the ram parts and m oats. B ut in th e c o u rs e o f h is p a s to ra l v isits to h is d o w n tr o d d e n p a r is h ­ io n e rs h e d isc o v e re d eld erly p e o p le w h o re m e m b e re d “th e tim e s o f g o ld e n fre e d o m , o f g r e a t p o ssib ility a n d p ro s p e rity , w h e n s e rfd o m h a d b a re ly b eg u n .” H e b e g a n to re c o rd th e ir sto rie s a b o u t th e p ast. To L eb ed y n tsev , th e se o ra l h is to rie s o ffered a n im p o r ta n t c o rre c tiv e to tra d itio n a l so u rc e s: “H e re w as th e ir o w n h isto ry , n o t c o h e re n t, n o t full, n o t p recise , b u t in w h o se sim p le w o rd s o n e c a n so m e tim e s h e a r 362 COLEMAN more of the presence of an extinguished life than in dozens of pages of sober history.” 74 Indeed, writing with more passion than in any of his many articles of “sober history” about ancient Kyiv, the cathedral archpriest returned to the arguments he had laid out as a young man about the religious drama of Ukraine’s past and the resilience of the common people’s national and religious character in the face of the depredations of aggressive Polish Roman Catholicism, turncoat Uniate gentry, and Jewish tavern-keepers. Father Petro Lebedyntsev was obviously not a typical nineteenthcentury Kyiv clergyman in his education (as a theological academy graduate), his senior position, or his character. However, his local patriotism and close connection to popular culture of the region were common for priests of his generation, brought up by fathers who had often not attended seminary and mothers who had not yet had the educational opportunities for priests’wives, to which Lebedyntsev had devoted much of his energy. The desire to see in the Russian state a protector of Orthodoxy was likely common as well. In a much-quoted obituary, a fellow priest described Lebedyn­ tsev as “a Ukrainophile in his views and convictions from his youth .”75 Since independence, Ukrainian scholars interested in the history of the church or of education have rediscovered him, and in the town of Bila Tserkva, where he spent nine years as a parish priest, he has been celebrated as the first local historian. His activity has mostly been described with little interpretation, although Volodymyr Pererva has characterized him as a Ukrainophile chafing against the restrictions of tsarist censorship, and a conference in Bila Tserkva connected his name rather vaguely with a “Ukrainian Renaissance” of the nineteenth century.76 However, an examination of his career and work underlines the extent to which the term “Ukrainophile” can encompass a broad and diverse range of perspectives.77 To a great extent, he seems to fit better the label that has often been seen as its opposite, the “Little Russians” whom Andreas Kappeler defines as people who “combined their loyalty to the emperor and state and their allegiance to Russian high culture with loyalty to Ukraine and its traditions.”78 More recently, Faith Hillis has questioned any sharp divide between the Ukrainophiles and the Little Russians, describing instead a “Little Russian lobby” under whose umbrella most of Kyiv educated society fit in the second half of the nineteenth century. Lebedyntsev’s career certainly fits well HISTO R Y , F A IT H , A N D R E G IO N A L ID E N T IT Y 363 w ithin her fram ew ork, w hich em phasizes the diversity of the “Little Russian lobby” and the extent of cooperation betw een advocates of the “Little Russian idea” and the authorities during this p e rio d .79 L eb ed y n tsev ’s clerical c are er an d h isto rical w ritin g s highlight the com plex relationship betw een region and n atio n in the second half of the n in eteen th century. The sam e obitu arist w ho called him a U krainophile also sum m arized the subject of his vast literary o u tp u t as “hom eland studies” (rodinovedenie) . 80 It w ould seem th a t this notion of hom eland holds th e key to teasing ap art th e circles of identifica­ tion and loyalties in L ebedyntsev’s identity. Lebedyntsev w as m ost definitely a U krainophile, in th e sense of a lover o f “Kyiv Ukraine,” the te rrito ry of Kyiv province and its people. The co m m o n th rea d in his w ritings is the drive to o rd er and m ake sense o f the religious and clerical landscape o f Kyiv province th ro u g h research into th e near and distan t past. His goals w ere ideological and practical: He aim ed to show “U k rain e’s” p rim o rd ial R u s' and O rth o d o x essence and to dem onstrate the contribution o f the local clergy and narod to p reserv­ ing th a t character; his driving am bition was to defend local clergym en as those w ho should be the natural leaders of the region’s O rth o d o x R us' people and to develop the locally g rounded pastoral tools th a t w ould allow th em to fulfill the role of pastor. This p reoccupation w ith asserting the legitimacy and value of local society led him into and gave m eaning to b ro ad er bases for identity, including th a t o f Little Russian speakers in the Russian Em pire, although som etim es the R uthenians across the b o rd er in Galicia w ere as im p o rta n t or even m ore so for his definition o f the nation. M onarchism and resp ect for the Russian state did n ot m ake him a G reat Russian or aspire to be one, b u t he was also uncom fortable w ith nationalizing U krainian ideas if they, too, ran roughshod over local particularities. His regionalism was essentially conservative, populist, and nativist, leery of excessive standardization; it was com plem entary to, b u t n o t u ncritical of, nationalizing Russian and U krainian discourses .81 L ebedyntsev’s “southw estern” identity alerts us to the significance of the local and regional com ponent in the elaboration of the U krainian as well as the Russian narrative. Right-Bank U kraine was n o t simply a blank slate upo n w hich G reat Russian officials o r Left-Bank Little R ussian g en try could draw th e ir b lu e p rin t for th e nation. T hrough L ebedyntsev we h ear the voice of an educated native o f the region, a C O LE M A N 364 v o ic e in d ia lo g u e w ith th o s e o t h e r v is io n s t h a t a llo w e d it to a tt r ib u t e w id e r s ig n if ic a n c e a n d p o litic a l v a lu e to lo c a l e x p e r ie n c e a n d c u ltu r e . No t 1. es L ow ell W. B a rrin g to n a n d E rik S. H e rro n , “O n e U k ra in e o r M an y? R egionalism in U krain e a n d Its Political C o nsequ enc es,” Nationalities Papers 32, no. 1 (M arch 20 0 4 ): 53; Tanya Z ah a rc h e n k o , "Po ly phonic D ichotom ies: M e m o ry a n d Id en tity in T oday’s U kraine,” Demokratizatsiia 21, no. 2 (Spring 2013): 2 4 2 - 4 3 . 2. A n d re a s Kappeler, “The U krain ian s of th e R ussian E m pire, 1860-1914,” in The Formation of National Elites, C o m p ara tiv e Studies o n G o v e rn ­ m e n ts a n d N o n -D o m in a n t E thnic G ro u p s in E urope, 1 8 5 0 -1 9 4 0 , vol. 6, ed. A n d reas K app eler in co llab o ra tio n w ith Fikret A d an ir an d A lan O ’Day (N ew York an d A ldersho t, 1992), 125. Exam ples o f social histories o f th e n atio n al m o v em e n t in G alicia include: Jo h n -P au l H im ka, Gali­ cian Villagers and the Ukrainian National Movement in the Nineteenth Century (N ew York, 1988); A ndriy Z ayarny uk, Framing the Ukrainian Peasantry in Flabsburg Galicia, 1846-1914 (E d m o n to n , 2013). 3. See, fo r exa m p le: V la d im ir K ra v c h en k o [V olo dym yr K ra v ch en k o ], Khar'kov/Kharkiv: Stolitsa pogranich'ia (V ilnius, 2010), esp. ch ap . 3 a n d pp. 2 0 8 -1 9 . 4. For tw o excellent surveys o f th is literature, see Celia Applegate, “A Europe o f Regions: R eflections o n th e H isto rio g rap h y o f S u b -N atio n al Places in M o d e rn Times," American Historical Review 104 (O c to b e r 1999): 1157-82; M aiken U m bach, “N a tio n a n d Region: R egionalism in M o d e rn E u ro p ean N atio n-States,” in What is a Nation? Europe 1789-1914, ed. T im othy B aycroft an d M ark H ew itso n (O xford, 2 0 0 6 ), 6 3 - 8 0 . 5. C a th e rin e E vtuhov, Portrait of a Russian Province: Economy, Society, and Civilization in Nineteenth-Century Nizhnii Novgorod (P ittsbu rg h, 2011) , 6 . 6. Susan Sm ith -P eter, "H ow to W rite a Region: Local a n d Regional H isto ­ riography,” Kritika 5, no. 3 (S um m er 20 0 4 ): 5 2 7 -4 2 ; Evtuhov, Portrait of a Russian Province, 15. For sim ilar p ro cesses in n e ig h b o rin g Galicia, see L arry Wolff, The Idea of Galicia: History and Fantasy in Habsburg Political Culture (Stanford, Calif., 2010). 7. V. A. B erdinskik h, “The Pa rish C lergy a n d th e D ev elo p m en t o f Local H ISTO R Y , F A IT H , A N D R E G IO N A L ID E N T IT Y 365 Russian Studies in History 4 4 , Uezdnye istoriki: Russkaia provin2 0 0 3 ) , e s p . 2 2 3 - 3 6 ; E v tu h o v , Por­ H i s t o r y i n N i n e t e e n t h - C e n t u r y R u s s ia ,” n o . 4 ( S p r i n g 2 0 0 6 ) : 9 - 1 8 ; id e m , tsial'naia istoriografiia (M o s c o w , trait of a Russian Province, 18 8 ; F r a n c o is P lo u x , “L e s c u r e s h i s t o r i e n s d e v illa g e e t le s t e n t a t i v e s d e r e s t a u r a t i o n d e l ’a u t o r i t e c le r i c a l e a p r e s Le Mouvement social, n o . 3 ( J u l y - S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 8 ) : 2 1 - 3 3 ; C a r o l i n e F o rd , Creating the Nation in Provincial France: Religion and Political Identity in Brittany ( P r i n c e t o n , 1 9 9 9 ), 2 4 - 2 8 ; S te p h a n e G e r s o n , The Pride of Place: Local Memories and Political Culture in Nineteenth-Century France ( I th a c a , N .Y ., 2 0 0 3 ) , 5 9 ; R i c a r d a V u lp iu s , Nationalisierung der Religion: Russifizierungspolitik und ukrainische Nationsbildung 1860-1920 ( W ie s b a d e n , 2 0 0 5 ) , 1 9 0 - 9 1 ; F r a n k S y s y n , la R e v o l u t io n ,” “F a t h e r M y k h a ilo Z u b r y t s 'k y : T h e N e s t o r o f t h e U k r a i n i a n V illag e,” in M y k h a ilo Z u b r y t s 'k y i, 1, 8. Naukovipratsi Zibrani tvory i materialy u tr 'okh tomakh, v o l. (Lviv, 2 0 1 3 ), 4 3 - 6 8 . S o p h ia S e n y k , “B e c o m in g a P ri e s t: T h e A p p o i n t m e n t a n d O r d i n a t i o n o f P r i e s t s i n t h e O r t h o d o x C h u r c h in U k r a i n e i n t h e E i g h t e e n t h C e n tu ry ,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 6 9 (2 0 0 3 ) : 1 3 1 - 3 2 ; G r e g o r y L. F re e z e , Parish Clergy in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Crisis, Reform, Count­ er-Reform ( P r i n c e to n , 1 9 8 3 ): 1 4 9 ,1 7 1 - 7 2 , 313, 3 8 5 . The 9. M y k h a i l o H r u s h e v s 'k y i , “P e t r o L e b e d y n t s e v — I v a n M a l y s h e v s 'k y i (N e k r o lo h )," in Tvory u 50 tomakh (Lviv, 2 0 0 4 ) , 6 :5 7 2 . A ll t r a n s l a t i o n s a r e m in e , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e i n d ic a te d . 10. P r o t o i e r e i A n d r e i L e b e d i n ts e v , “M o i v o s p o m i n a n i i a , ” rina, n o s . Kievskaia sta- 7 - 8 (1 9 0 0 ): 1 4 7 - 4 8 ; S v ia s h c h e n n ik I o a n n G o r d ie v s k ii, “S v ia - s h c h e n n i k G a v r iil G r i g o r 'e v i c h L e b e d i n ts e v ,” Strannik ( A p r il 1 8 6 6 ): 5 - 2 1 ; S v ia s h c h fe n n ik ] I o a n n G o rd ie v s k ii, “P a m ia ti k a f e d r a l 'n a g o p r o to ie r e ia P e t r a G a v ri lo v ic h a L e b e d in ts e v a ,” Kievskie eparkhial 'nye vedomosti n o . 5 (1 M a r c h 1 8 9 7 ), 2 5 0 - 6 2 . G o r d i e v s k ii w a s G a v r iil L e b e d i n t s e v ’s g r a n d s o n a n d s u c c e s s o r a s p r i e s t o f Z e l e n a D ib r o v a . O n la n g u a g e , s e e t h e m e m o i r o f P e t r o s b r o t h e r , F e o fa n : F. L o b o d a [F e o f a n L e b e d y n ts e v ] , “M i m o l e t n o e z n a k o m s t v o m o e s T. G . S h e v c h e n k o m i m o i o b n e m v o s p o m i n a n i ia ,” Kievskaia 11. starina, n o . 11 (1 8 8 7 ): 5 7 2 . S v ia s h c h e n n ik F. T ito v , “K ie v o - s o fiis k ii k a f e d r a l 'n y i p r o t o i e r e i P e tr G a v ­ r i i l o v ic h L e b e d in ts e v ,” Trudy Kievskoi dukhovnoi akademii 1 (1 8 9 7 ): 1 4 0 -5 4 . 12. S v ia s h c h [ e n n ik ] I o a n n G o r d ie v s k ii, “P a m i a t i k a f e d r a l 'n a g o p r o t o i e r e i a P e t r a G a v r i l o v i c h a L e b e d i n ts e v a ,” Kievskie eparkhial ’nye vedomosti 366 13. 14. 15. 16. COLEM AN no. 6 (15 M arch 1897), 3 0 3-5. O n historical sites, see N. Kostomarov [Mykola Kostomarov], “Poezdka v Beluiu Tserkov',” Kievskaia starina, no. 5 (1882): 255. He published some of these oral histories many years later: P. L-v, “Razskazy starykh liudei o starykh vremenakh,” Kievskaia starina, no. 8 (1884): 715-24. According to his nephew, Gordievskii, he never found tim e to complete his book project. Susan Smith-Peter, The Russian Provincial Newspaper and Its Public, 1788-1864, The Carl Beck Papers in Russian and East European Stud­ ies, no. 1908 (Pittsburgh, 2008), 1, 23; Evtuhov, Portrait of a Russian Province, 137. Sm ith-Peter, Russian Provincial Newspaper, 1. Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, no. 7 (13 February 1854), 46. For local descriptions by priests, see Protoierei M. Dashkevich, “Ukraina,” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, no. 21 (26 May 1851), 161-64; Sviashchennik A leksandr M atskevich, “M estechko Belilovka,” no. 35 (1 Septem ber 1854), 275-76; Sviashchennik V. Antonov, “Selo Tembershina,” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, no. 31 (31 July 1854), 201-4. “M estechko Belaia-Tserkov',” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, no. 6 (6 February 1854), 38-43; “M estechko Belaia Tserkov' (Prodolzhenie),” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, no. 7 (13 February 1854), 4 5 -4 6 ; “Perec h e n ' sobytii, sovershivshikhsia v Beloi-Tserkvi,” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, no. 9 (1854), 57; “M estechko Belaia Tserkov',” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, no. 11 (13 M arch 1854), 70-74; “Perechen' sobytii, sovershivshikhsia v Beloi-Tserkvi (Okonchanie),” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, no. 24 (12 June 1854), 157-59; “Obozrenie tserkvei, byvshikh i nynie sushchestvuiushchikh v m. Beloi-Tserkvi,” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, no. 2 (8 January 1855), 6 -9 ; “O bozrenie tserkvei, byvshikh i nynie sushchestvuiushcheikh v m. Beloi-Tserkvi,” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, no. 3 (15 January 1855), 14-17. For evidence that this unsigned article was the work of Lebedyntsev, see Gordievskii, “Pamiati,” no. 6, 305. O n the term “Ukraine” at the time, see Alexei Miller, The Ukrainian Question: The Russian Empire and Nationalism in the Nineteenth Cen­ tury (Budapest and New York, 2003), 30-33. 17. “M estechko Belaia Tserkov',” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, no. 6, pp. 39, 41; “M estechko Belaia-Tserkov',” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, no. 7, p. 45. O n the polem ic with Rulikowski, see Oleksii Starodub, “Zahal 'na istoriia Biloi Tserkvy ochamy naukovtsiv XIX st.,” in Protoierei Petro Lebedyntsev ta ukrains 'ke Vidrodzhennia XlX-pochatku XX st., Materialy naukovykh chytan '29 lystopada 2001 roku, ed. L. M. Didenko H IS T O R Y , F A IT H , A N D R E G IO N A L ID E N T IT Y 367 a n d V. A . K o l o m i i e t s ' (B ila T s e r k v a , 2 0 0 2 ) , 2 5 . I n L e b e d y n t s e v ’s o p i n i o n , R u l i k o w s k i’s b o o k d o w n p l a y e d t h e r o l e o f O r t h o d o x y a n d t h e a n c i e n t c h a r a c t e r o f B ila T s e r k v a . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h i s w o r k c o n t a i n s e x t e n s i v e a n d g r o u n d - b r e a k i n g e t h n o g r a p h i c r e s e a r c h o n t h e l o c a l “L i tt le R u s s i a n ” p e a s a n t r y . S e e O k s a n a B u r k a , “E d v a r d R u i ik o v s 'k y i — d o s l i d n y k F a s t iv s h c h y n y ,” i n Protoierei Petro Lebedyntsev ta ukrains 'ke Vidrodzhennia, 38. Kievskiegubernskie vedomosti, n o . 9 , p . 5 3 . Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, n o . 18. “ P e r e c h e n ' s o b y ti i,” 19. “M e s t e c h k o B e la ia T s e r k o v ',” 6, p. 41. 20. “O b o z r e n i e ts e r k v e i,” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, n o . 2, p . 9. O n L e b e ­ d y n t s e v ’s g r a n d f a t h e r , s e e L e b e d i n t s e v , “M o i v o s p o m i n a n i i a ,” 1 4 2 - 4 3 . 21. 22. 23. Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, n o . 2 4 , p . 1 5 7 . “O b o z r e n i e t s e r k v e i,” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, n o . 3 , p . 1 6 - 1 7 . “M e s t e c h k o B e l a i a - T s e r k o v ',” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, n o . 11, “P e r e c h e n ' s o b y tii, p. 72. 24. I b id ., 7 4 . B y t h e m i d - 1 8 5 0 s t h e t e r m “z h i d ” h a d a l r e a d y b e g u n t o a c q u i r e a n e g a t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n i n R u s s i a n ; i t m a y s t i ll h a v e b e e n l o c a l u s a g e in th e U k r a in ia n p r o v in c e s , b u t b y th e 1 8 8 0 s, w h e n L e b e d y n ts e v u s e d th e t e r m “z h i d ” i n h i s m e m o i r s o f h i s t i m e i n B ila T s e r k v a , t h e r e c a n b e n o d o u b t t h a t h e m e a n t i t p e jo r a t iv e ly . O n t h e t e r m , s e e J o h n D . K lie r, “‘Z h i d ’: B i o g r a p h y o f a R u s s i a n E p i t h e t ,” Review 6 0 , 25. Slavonic and East European n o . 1 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 8 2 ); 1 - 1 5 . T h a t s a id , h is a r tic le s in Kievskie gubernskie viedomosti m a k e s tr id e s t o w a r d h is to r ic a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a n d n o t m e r e ly th e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f d a t a , w h i c h w a s u n u s u a l a m o n g p r i e s t s ’ c o n t r i b u t i o n s , w i t h t h e p o s s ib l e e x c e p tio n o f th o s e o f A r c h p r ie s t M y k h a ilo D a s h k e v y c h . 26. P a t r i c i a K e n n e d y G r i m s t e d , “A r c h e o g r a p h y in t h e S e r v i c e o f I m p e r i a l P o l ic y : T h e F o u n d a t i o n o f t h e K i e v A r c h e o g r a p h i c C o m m i s s i o n a n d Harvard Ukrainian Studies 17, n o s . 1 - 2 ( J u n e 1 9 9 3 ) : 2 9 - 3 4 ; S t e p h e n V e l y c h e n k o , National History as Cultural Process ( E d m o n t o n , 1 9 9 2 ) , 2 0 7 - 8 . F a i t h H i lli s , Children of RusRight-Bank Ukraine and the Invention of a Russian Nation ( I t h a c a , N .Y ., 2 0 1 3 ) , c h a p . 1; Z e n o n E . K o h u t , “O r i g i n s o f t h e K i e v C e n t r a l A r c h i v e o f E a r ly R e c o r d B o o k s ,” 27. th e U n ity P a ra d ig m : U k r a in e a n d th e C o n s tr u c tio n o f R u s sia n N a tio n a l H i s t o r y ( 1 6 2 0 - 1 8 6 0 ) ,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 3 5 , n o . 1 (F a ll 2 0 0 1 ) : 7 0 - 7 6 . T h e U k r a i n i a n n o v e l i s t I v a n N e c h u i - L e v y t s 'k y i r e m e m b e r e d h i s f a t h e r , a v il la g e p r i e s t i n K y iv p r o v i n c e , o w n i n g t h e c la s s i c s o f L i tt le R u s s i a n h i s t o r y , i n c l u d i n g M a r k e v y c h , B a n t y s h - K a m e n s 'k y i , a n d t h e 368 CO LEM A N E y e w itn e s s C h r o n ic le in t h e 1 8 4 0 s a n d 1 8 5 0 s , S e e “Z h y tti e p y s I v a n a L e v y t s 'k o h o ( N e c h u i a ) , n a p y s a n y i n y m s a m y m ,” i n Sami pro sebe: Avto- biohrafii vydatnykh ukrai'ntsiv XlX-ho stolittia, e d . G . S. N . L u c k y j ( N e w Y o rk , 1 9 8 9 ), 2 3 0 . 28. It is c le a r t h a t th e lo c a l U k r a in ia n c le r g y s h a r e d th is m e n ta lity w ith Holy Fathers, Sec­ ular Sons: Clergy, Intelligentsia, and the Modern Self in Revolutionary Russia ( D e K a l b , 111., 2 0 0 8 ) , 2 9 - 3 1 . T h e m a i n l o c a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f K y iv t h e ir R u s s ia n c o u n te r p a r ts . S e e L a u rie M a n c h e s te r , p r o v in c e a v a ila b le in th e n in e te e n th c e n tu r y w a s th e w o r k o f th e s o n o f a p a r i s h p r i e s t w h o s p e n t h i s c a r e e r a s a n a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f t h e K y iv S p i r i t u a l C o n s i s t o r y , L a v r e n t ii P o k h y l e v y c h . S e e L a v r e n t i i I. P o k h i le v i c h , Skazaniia o naselennykh mestnostiakh Kievskoi gubernii ( B i la T serk v a , 2 0 0 5 [1 8 6 4 ]). 29. I u z h n o r u s s , “ N e s k o l 'k o s lo v p o p o v o d u p i s e m iz P o l 's h i ,” Dukhovnaia beseda, n o . 1 8 ( 1 8 5 9 ): 1 5 2 ; c f. I u z h n o r u s s , Neskol 'ko slov o iugozapadnoi Rush Po povodu pisem iz Pol'shi ( K y iv , 1 8 5 9 ) . I . F. M a s a n o v , Slovar' psevdonimov russkikh pisatelei, uchenykh i obshchestvennykh deiatelei, 4 v o ls. (M o s c o w , 1 9 5 6 - 1 9 6 0 ) , 3 :2 8 0 , id e n tif ie s I u z h n o r u s s a s P e tr o L e b e d y n ts e v . 30. I u z h n o r u s s , “N e s k o l 'k o s lo v ,” 1 5 6 . 31. I b id , 1 5 8 . 32. Ib id , 152; th e b r o c h u r e v e rs io n w a s e s p e c ia lly in s is te n t o n th is p o in t: 33. I u z h n o r u s s , “N e s k o l 'k o s lo v ,” 1 5 3 - 5 4 . 34. D a v id S a u n d e rs , Iu z h n o ru ss, Neskol 'ko slov, 4 . The Ukrainian Impact on Russian Culture, 1750-1850 ( E d m o n to n , 1 9 8 5 ), 7. N o te s im ila ritie s w ith th e a r g u m e n ts o f a n o th e r R ig h t-B a n k p a tr io t, th e s o n o f a p r ie s t fr o m P o d ilia p ro v in c e a n d p r o ­ f e s s o r o f p e d a g o g y a t K y iv U n i v e r s i t y , S . S . G o g o t s k i i , i n h i s a n o n y ­ m o u s l y p u b l i s h e d a r t i c l e t h a t a p p e a r e d t h a t s a m e y e a r : N ., “G o l o s iz Russkoe slovo ( A u g u s t 1 8 5 9 ) , p t . 3 , 1 9 - 2 7 . F o r Ukrainian Question, 6 9 - 7 0 , 8 8 . O n t h e p a s t o r a l c a r e m o v e m e n t , s e e J e n n i f e r H e d d a , His Kingdom Come: Orthodox Pastorship and Social Activism in Revolutionary Rus­ sia ( D e K a l b , 111., 2 0 0 8 ) ; G r e g o r y L . F r e e z e , " T h e R e c h r i s t i a n i z a t i o n o f R u s s i a : T h e C h u r c h a n d P o p u l a r R e l ig i o n , 1 7 5 0 - 1 8 5 0 , ” Studia Slavica Finlandensia 7 ( 1 9 9 0 ) : 1 0 7 - 8 ; M a n c h e s t e r , Holy Fathers, Secular Sons. S e e , e .g ., F e o f a n L e b e d i n t s e v , Bratstva, ikh prezhniaia i nynieshniaia sud 'ba i znachenie (K y iv , 1 8 6 2 ) . I u g o - Z a p a d n o i R o s s ii,” G o g o t s k i i ’s v i e w s , s e e a ls o M i l le r , 35. 36. H IS T O R Y , 37. F A IT H , A N D R E G IO N A L ID E N T IT Y 3 6 9 M a n u s c r i p t D iv is io n , U k r a in i a n N a t io n a l L i b r a r y ( h e r e a f t e r IR N B U ), f. I l l , n o . 6 7 3 3 ; I R N B U , f. I l l , n o . 6 7 3 2 , a r k . 3 6 ; I R N B U , f. I l l , n o . 6 7 4 6 , a r k . 1; I R N B U , f. I l l , n o . 6 7 4 7 , a r k . 1. 38. O n t h e “l o c a l” in R o m a n C a t h o l ic p a s to r a l t h e o lo g y a n d p r a c t ic e in th e m id - n in e te e n th c e n tu ry , s e e , fo r e x a m p le , F o rd , Provincial France, 39. Creating the Nation in 25. I R N B U , f. I l l , n o . 6 7 3 2 , a r k . 3 6 - 3 6 v . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t t h e o n l y l a n g u a g e m e n t i o n e d t h a t m e r i t s t h e w o r d “ ia z y lc ” ( l a n g u a g e ) is “L i t t l e R u s s ia n .” A ll t h e o t h e r s , i n c l u d i n g G r e a t R u s s i a n , a r e r e f e r r e d t o a s d i a l e c t s ( narechiia). A r o u n d t h e s a m e t i m e F e o f a n a l s o d i s c u s s e d p l a n s f o r a p e r i o d i c a l f e a t u r i n g a “l o c a l ” s e c t i o n w i t h T a r a s S h e v c h e n k o . S e e L o b o d a , “M i m o l e t n o e z n a k o m s t v o ,” 5 7 1 . O n t h e n e u t r a l u s e o f t h e t e r m “ k h o k h o l ” i n t h i s p e r i o d , s e e B r i a n J. B o e c k , “ W h a t ’s i n a N a m e ? S e m a n t i c S e p a r a t i o n a n d t h e R is e o f t h e U k r a i n i a n N a t i o n a l N a m e ,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 2 7 , no. 1 -4 (2 0 0 4 -2 0 0 5 ): 4 0 -4 1 . 40. I R N B U , f. I l l , n o . 6 7 3 3 , a r k . 3 9 . 41. I R N B U , f. I l l , n o . 6 7 5 0 , a r k . 1. 42. S v . P. L - v , “ K h r i s t i a n s k a i a g o s t i n n i t s a , ” pastyrei, 43. Rukovodstvo dlia sel 'skikh n o . 3 (1 5 M a r c h 1 8 6 0 ) : 7 0 - 7 2 . S v . P. L e b e d i n t s e v , “ N e s k o l ' k o s l o v o s p o s o b e o b u c h e n i i a g r a m o t e v s e l 's k i k h s h k o l a k h , ” Rukovodstvo dlia sel 'skikh pastyrei, n o . 3 2 (4 O c to ­ b e r 1 8 6 0 ) : 3 8 2 - 8 5 . H e r e t h e t e r m “s o u t h w e s t e r n ” s e e m s t o a p p l y t o a l l U k r a in ia n s p e a k e r s in th e R u s s ia n E m p ire . 44. 45. Iu zh n o ru ss, Neskol 'ko slov, 5 . “S tra d a n ie i m u c h e n ie za p ra v o s la v ie D a n iila K u s h n ira , z h ite lia M lie v s k a g o ; R o k u 1 7 6 6 , m e s ia ts a I iu lia 2 9 d n ia , v d e n ' s u b b o tn ii, n a s v i a t a g o m u c h e n i k a K a l i n n i k a p o s t r a d a l o t n a s t o i a t e l e i G d y s h i t s k i k h iz u n i a t o v ”; S v i a s h c h e n n i k P e t r L e b e d i n t s e v , “D o p o l n i t e l 'n y i a s v e d e n i i a k s k a z a n iiu o m u c h e n ic h e s k o i k o n c h in e M lie v s k a g o k tito r a D a n iila K u s h n ir a ,” Rukovodstvo dlia sel'skikh pastyrei, n o . 2 (8 M a r c h 1 8 6 0 ) : 3 8 -5 4 . 46. S v ia s h c h e n n ik P e tr L e b e d in ts e v , “O s p o s o b a k h s o d e r z h a n iia , k o im i p o l ' z o v a l o s ' p r a v o s l a v n o e s e l 's k o e d u k h o v e n s t v o , v p r e d e l a k h K i e v s k o i g u b e r n ii, v 1 8 - m v e k e i v p e r v o i p o l o v in e 1 9 - g o v e k a , d o 1 8 4 2 g o d a ,” Rukovodstvo dlia sel'skikh pastyrei, n o . 9 (2 6 A p ril 1 8 6 0 ): 1 9 7 -2 1 1 ; "O s p o s o b a k h s o d e r z h a n iia p ra v o s l[a v n o g o ] d u k h o v e n s tv a v K ie v sk o i g u b e rn ii,” 2 2 9 -3 9 . Rukovodstvo dlia sel'skikh pastyrei, n o . 10 (3 M a y 1 8 6 0 ) : 370 COLEMAN 47. C entral State H istorical Archive in Kyiv (hereafter TsDIAK), f. 127, op. 765, spr. 497, ark. 2v; Titov, “Kievo-sofiiskii kafedral'nyi protoierei,” 161-62; V. Naum enko, “Petr Gavrilovich Lebedintsev; Nekrolog,” Kievskaia starina, no. 2 (1897): 341. 48. A m ong many examples of M aksym ovych’s contributions, see M. M ak­ simovich, “Vospominanie o starodavnem m onastyre Kanevskom,” Kievskie eparkhial 'nye vedomosti, no. 24 (1864): 757-65; M. Maksimovich, “Nechto o M ezhigor 'e,” Kievskie eparkhial ’nye vedomosti, no. 20 (1864): 6 3 0 -3 2 . 49. Soobshch. V. N aum enko, “Perepiska M. A. M aksim ovicha s P. G. Lebedintsevym (1865-1873),” Kievskaia starina, no. 9, otd. 1 (1904): 399. 50. “Predely Kievskoi eparkhii v drevnee i nyneshnee vrem ia,” Kievskie eparkhial 'nye vedomosti, no. 1 (January 1861): 8-14; “Nekrolog,” Kievskie eparkhial 'nye vedomosti, no. 1 (January 1861): 3 3 -3 6 . Like m any of Lebedyntsev’s contributions, these were unsigned; however, they were later attrib u ted to him in the cum ulative index. Berdychiv is now in Zhytom yr oblast. See, e.g., “E parkhial'naia khronika,” Kievskie eparkhial'nye vedomosti, no. 3 (1861): 9 8 -9 9 . See also “Nachalo obychaia v o d ru zh at' sv. kresty na poliakh i pri dorogakh,” Kievskie eparkhial 'nye vedomosti, no. 12 (15 June 1865): 4 73-75. For a further discussion of this topic, see Hezer Kolman [Heather Coleman], “Shcho take Kyivs'ke pravoslav’ia? Parafiialnyi klir i mistseva relihiina praktyka Kyivs 'kol eparkhii u XIX st.,” Trudy Kyivs 'koi dukhovnoiakademii no. 21 (2014): 179-87 . 52. “N ashim podpischikam —sel 'skim sviashchennikam Kievskoi eparkhii,” Kievskie eparkhial 'nye vedomosti, no. 6 (15 M arch 1863): 167-68; Titov, “Kievo-sofiiskii kafedral'nyi protoierei,” 162. 53. Titov, “Kievo-sofiiskii kafedral'nyi protoierei,” 162-63. 54. TsDIAK f. 127, op. 699, spr. 274, ark. 19-21. The project did not yield m uch, besides a few articles in the diocesan gazette. 55. TsDIAK f. 127, op. 835, spr. 151 deals, for example, w ith his work on the frescoes of the Redeem er church on the grounds of the Kyiv Caves M onastery, which he traced to the early eleventh century. See also Pr. P. L., Tserkov' Spasa na Berestove v Kieve, byvshaia pridvornaia sv. 51. Velikago kniazia Vladimira, drevnieishaia vekh nynie sushchestvuiushchikh v Rossii tserkvei (Kyiv, 1862), originally published in Kievskie eparkhial 'nye vedomosti. He also oversaw the restoration o f St. Sophia C athedral (TsDIAK f. 127, op. 1023, spr. 375). H IS T O R Y , F A IT H , A N D R E G IO N A L ID E N T IT Y 371 56. IR NBU, f. 154, no. 210, ark. 1-2; Fedir Savchenko, Zaborona Ukrainstva 1876 r. (M unich, 1970,273; I<. I<. Krainii, “Ky'ivs'ke Tserkovno-istorychne ta arkheolohichne tovarystvo 1872-1920,” Laws 'kyi al 'manakh, vyp. 1 57. O r[est] L evyts'kyi, “Istoriia budovy pam iatnyka B. K h m e l'n y ts'k o m u u Kyievi,” Literaturno-naukovyi vistnyk, no. 6 (1913): 469. 58. N aum enko, “P etr G avrilovich Lebedintsev,” 339. 59. The m em o irs o f Saava, a rch b ish o p o f Tver, are cited in O lek san d er (Kyiv, 2001), 14, 2 0 -2 1 , 3 4 -3 5 , 43. L otots'k yi, Storinky mynuloho, vol. 1 (Warsaw, 1932), 207. 60. P rotoierei I<l[imentii], Fom enko, Izpamiatkiprikhodskago sviashchen61. nika o Kieve za sorok letpred sim (Kyiv, 1904), 18. “Pis 'm a m itropolita Kievskago A rseniia k protoiereiu Petru G avrilovichu Lebedintsevu,” Kievskaia starina, no. 10, otd. 1 (1900): 12 3 -6 2 . 62. Russian S tate H isto rical A rchiv e (RGIA), f. 796, op. 205, d. 349, 11. 74-74v. 63. “P is'm a m itropolita Kievskago A rseniia,” 149. 64. “K om u v d eistv itel'n o sti p rinadlezhit p ro ek t ob unichtozhenii soslovnosti dukhovenstv a v iugo-zapadnom kraie?” Kievskaia starina, no. 11 (1900): 69-71; L ebedyntsev w atched th e progress o f his proposal from afar and com m ented on it to M aksym ovych. See N aum enko, "Perepiska M. A. M aksim ovicha,” 1 4 5 -4 6 . O n the reform of th e clerical estate m ore generally, see Freeze, Parish Clergy, 310-11. 65. “V otvete na vykhodku g. G avorskago,” Kievskie eparkhial 'nye vedo- mosti, no. 23 (1 D ecem ber 1863): 7 2 6 -2 9 . See F. L ebedintsev, "Ivan M ikhailovich Skvortsov: K afedral'nyi protoierei Kievo-Sofiiskago sobora (Nekrolog),” Kievskie eparkhial 'nye vedomosti, no. 17 (1863): 519-20. 66. Poslednee slovo opol 'skom voprose v Rossii (Berlin, 1869), 21-22. 67. “V opros o m e stn o m d u k h o v en stv e iu g o zap ad n ag o kraia,” Kievskie eparkhial'nye vedomosti, no. 22 (16 N ovem ber 1868): 8 4 5 -5 8 . 68. “Zapiski protoiereia P etra G avrilovicha L ebedin tseva o ‘kozashchine,’ 1855 goda,” Kievskaia starina nos. 7 - 8 (1900): 36, 39, 42. 69. TsDIAK, f. 127, op. 699, spr. 819, ark. 7 - 9 . 70. L otots 'kyi, Storinky mynuloho, 207. 71. P rom inent exam ples include P. L., Kievo-Pecherskaia Lavra v eia pro- shedshem i nyneshnem sostoianii, s fasadami velikoi Lavrskoi tserkvi, planom eia i planom peshcher, 2nd rev. ed. (Kyiv, 1894); P. L., Kogda igde sovershilos' kreshchenie kievlian pri sv. Vladimire (Kyiv, 1887); P. P. L., Opisanie Kievo-Sofiiskago kafedral 'nago Sobora (Kyiv, 1882). The article COLEM AN 372 to w hich L o to ts'k y i referred w as m o st likely P. L. “M ikhail, m itro p o lit kievskii XII veka (1131-1147),” Kievskaia starina, no. 12 (1892): 3 2 3 -3 6 . 72. Pr. P. L-v, “Taras G rig o r'e v ich Shevchenko (N ekotoryia d o polneniia i po pravki k ego biografii),” Kievskaia starina, no. 9 (1882): 5 6 0 -6 6 . 73. See, e.g., L-v, “P osm ertnyi razskaz o. A ntoniia K oval'skago (K istorii k rest'ia n sk ik h volnenii v Kievskoi g u bernii 1855 goda,” Kievskaia sta­ rina, no. 1 (1882): 174-92. 74. P. L-v, "Rasskazy starykh liudei o starykh vrem enakh,” Kievskaia starina, no. 8 (1884): 717. 75. Titov, “Kievo-sofiiskii k afedral'nyi protoierei,” 135. In 1881 his lo ngtim e associate M . V. Iuzefovych d en o u n ced him as a U krain ophile sep arat­ ist, w hich is w h at he called anyone in th e circle of local p a trio ts w ith w hom he was in disagreem ent at any given tim e; see Levyts 'kyi, “Istoriia budovy pamiatnyka," 478, 481. 76. V. S. Pererva, “R ukopysna spadshchyna P. H. L ebedyntseva iak istorych n e dzherelo,” in Visnyk Ky'ivs 'koho universytetu, Seriia istoriia, vyp. 46 (Kyiv, 2000), 15-19; V olodym yr D enysenko, “Braty Lebedyntsevy,” Pam’ia t' stolit', no. 5 (1999): 150-53; V. M . S tepanenko and H. V. Ste­ panenko, “O svitn ia d iia l'n is t' K yievo-S ofiis'koho k a fe d ra l'n o h o proto iereia P etra H avrylovycha L ebedyntseva (d ru h a polovyna XIX st.), in Sarbeivs 'ki chytannia (Kyiv, 2003), 8 2 -8 9 ; L. M. D idenko and V. A. K o lom iiets', Protoierei Petro Lebedyntsev ta ukrains 'ke Vidrodzhennia XlX-pochatku XX st. Materialy naukovykh chytan' 29 lystopada 2001 roku (Bila Tserkva, 2002). 77. A. I. Miller, “U krainofil'stvo,” Slavianovedenie, no. 5 (1998): 28. 78. A ndreas Kappeler, “Mazepintsy, Malorossy, Khokhly: U krain ians in the Ethnic H ierarchy o f the Russian Empire,” in Culture, Nation, and Iden­ tity: The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter, 1600-1945, ed. A ndreas K ap­ peler, Z enon E. Kohut, Frank E. Sysyn, and M ark von H agen (Edm onton, 2003), 174. 79. Hillis, Children o/R us', 59, 8 8 ,1 0 0 . 80. Titov, “Kievo-sofiiskii kafedral 'nyi protoierei,” 137. 81. M aiken Um bach, “N ation and Region: Regionalism in M o d ern European N ation-States,” in What is a Nation? Europe 1789-1914, ed. T im othy Baycroft and M ark H ew itson (Oxford, 2006): 65,78; A. I. Miller, “Shap­ ing R ussian a nd U krain ian Id entities in the R ussian Em pire d u rin g the N in e te e n th C entury : Som e M eth odological Rem arks,” Jahrbiicherfur Geschichte Osteuropas 49, no. 2 (2001): 2 5 7 -6 3 . Copyright of Harvard Ukrainian Studies is the property of Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.