Ivan L. Rudnytsky, Essays in Modern Ukrainian History, 1987. Unpublished manuscript.
Hipolit Vladimir Terlecki Hipolit (religious name, Vladimir) Terlecki1 (1808-88) merits the historian's attention because of his contribution to the development of nineteenth-century Ukrainian political thought, and because of the biographical interest of his long and extraordinary life. Nevertheless, he is virtually a forgotten figure, and no monographic study has ever been written about him.
This neglect is to be explained by the fact that Terlecki falls into a marginal area between Polish, Ukrainian, and Russian national histories. By birth he belonged to the Polish nobility of Right-Bank Ukraine; in his mature years he identified himself with the Ukrainian nationality; in his old age, finally, he went over to the Russian side. These changes in national-political orientation were paralleled by religious changes. Terlecki was in turn a Roman Catholic of the Latin rite, an Eastern-rite Catholic (Uniate), and an Orthodox. It is not surprising that scholars of all three Slavic nationalities have been reluctant to claim as their own a figure who did not seem to fit well into any of their respective national histories.
An evaluation of Terlecki's personality, and of his disturbing spiritual odyssey, will be offered in the concluding part of this paper. It will be based on the preceding discussion of his life, writings, and ideas. At this point, I wish only to propose that Terlecki, in spite of his metamorphoses, ought to be considered as belonging essentially to Ukrainian history, not only because during the prime of his life he professed to be Ukrainian,2 but also because his very vacillations are characteristic of the difficulties and pitfalls to be found on the road which nineteenth-century Ukrainian intellectuals had to travel.
Life
Within the scope of this paper it is possible to present no more than an outline of Terlecki's life.3 But even this will suffice to show the strange turns of fate and the wealth of experiences which were this man's lot.
Hipolit Terlecki was born in 1808 in the Starokostiantyniv district of Volhynia province. He belonged to an old Ukrainian noble family which in the sixteenth century had produced Kyrylo Terletsky, the Orthodox bishop of Lutsk, one of the architects of the Union of Brest (1596). The Terleckis, however, like the rest of the Right-Bank nobility, had become Polonized, and Hipolit was baptized a Roman Catholic.4
Hipolit Terlecki's parents must have been comparatively poor, because he chose a professional career which would have been considered unsuitable for a rich landowner's son. He attended the Lycee of Kremianets (Krzemieniec), the celebrated Polish educational institution in Volhynia, and afterwards, from 1825 to 1830, the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Vilnius. The granting of a medical doctorate was prevented by the outbreak of the Polish revolt in November 1830, which spilled over from the Congress Kingdom into Right-Bank Ukraine. Terlecki hastened to join the Volhynian Cavalry Regiment, formed by volunteers from the local nobility. He took part in the campaign in the capacity of a military surgeon, experienced battle, and was at one time captured by the Russians, but succeeded in rejoining his unit. He shared the fate of his regiment: first the retreat to Congress Poland, and afterwards the final defeat and the flight to Galicia, where the insurgents laid down their arms before the Austrians.
He found a new home in Cracow, then a free city under the joint protectorate of the three partitioning powers. Terlecki resumed medical studies at the Jagellonian University, and in 1834 obtained the doctorate. Next year he married the daughter of a professor of classics, Anna Schugt, who enjoyed renown as a poetess. But Hipolit's dream of family happiness and normal professional life was soon to be shattered. In 1836 his young wife died in childbirth. The same year the Austrian government expelled Polish emigres from Galicia and Cracow. Leaving his infant son in the care of grandparents, he embarked in Trieste for Marseilles. His destination was France, the haven of Polish exiles.
Terlecki settled in Montpellier. The loss of everything which was dear to him and the sudden transplantation to a foreign country caused him to fall into a deep depression. Until that time he had been religiously indifferent, but now he experienced a conversion, became an ardent Catholic, and began to think of the priesthood. As he wrote in his memoirs, "even then an ineffable feeling attracted me to the Eastern rite."5 Terlecki decided to dedicate his life to the idea of the union of the Eastern Christians, especially of the Orthodox Ukrainians, with the Catholic Church.
Before embarking on this great design, however, he wished to validate his medical degree. He enrolled in the Faculty of Medicine at Montpellier, and in 1838 obtained a second, French doctorate. Terlecki also visited Paris, where he was introduced to Prince Adam Czartoryski, the "uncrowned king of the Polish emigration." He made the acquaintance of the French liberal Catholic politician, Count Montalembert, and befriended the poets Adam Mickiewicz and Bohdan Zaleski. Terlecki felt particularly attracted to the latter, because Zaleski was a native of Ukraine and an exponent of the "Ukrainian School" in Polish literature. But these mundane connections did not deter Terlecki from his spiritual vocation. After briefly practicing medicine in France, he left for Rome in 1839. He had just recently turned thirty.
In Rome Hipolit Terlecki joined the Resurrectionists, a recently founded Polish religious order. He embarked on the study of theology, was ordained a priest in 1842, and the next year received the Doctorate of Divinity. The election in 1846 of Pius IX, reputed a liberal, seemed to indicate the beginning of a new era in the Vatican's policy, and Terlecki felt that his hour had come. In 1846 he submitted a memorandum to the Pope on the subject of the union of churches. The paper was read by Pius IX and evoked his interest. Terlecki was granted several private audiences by the Pope. One can only marvel at Terlecki's luck, and also his unusual persuasiveness, which allowed a simple young cleric, without any hierarchical standing, to establish direct communications with the pontiff.
The main points of Terlecki's memorandum were the following6: Eastern churches united with Rome should enjoy privileges and honour equal to those of the Latin-rite Catholic Church, and their customs and liturgies should be preserved integrally; Eastern Catholic churches should be permanently represented in the College of Cardinals; all Latin missions among the Orthodox should be discontinued, and missionary work entrusted exclusively to Uniates, members of the same nationalities and the same rites as the respective Orthodox communities. Point four of the memorandum stated that "there should be created a Ruthenian Slavonic [i.e., Ukrainian Catholic] patriarchate, with rights equal to those of the other [Uniate] patriarchal sees"; the Ruthenian patriarch should also be made cardinal.7 In conclusion, Terlecki asked a personal favour: permission to rejoin his ancestral Slavonic rite, so as to be able better to devote himself to his unionist task. The Pope's reaction to Terlecki's proposals was most encouraging, and he immediately granted his personal request. One result of Terlecki's turning from a Latin into a Uniate priest was the end of his association with the Resurrectionist Order.
On Terlecki's initiative, an Oriental Society for the Union of Churches was founded in Rome. It was to include ecclesiastics and influential lay-men, and was to serve as a platform for the proposed unionist action. The preparatory meetings took place at the residence of Princess Zinaide Volkonsky, a Russian expatriate and Catholic convert. Princess Volkonsky took a lively interest in Terlecki's plans and aided him financially in difficult moments.8 A promoter of the Society was the French missionary Bishop Lucquet, recently returned from India. The Oriental Society was formally constituted on 1 July 1847. Cardinal Fransoni, the prefect of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, was elected president, and Terlecki became secretary. An endorsement of the Society, and thus, indirectly, of Terlecki's work, was to be found in Pius IX's encyclical, In supremi Petri apostoli sede, dated 6 January 1848.9 This was an appeal to the Orthodox churches to unite with Rome under the authority of the Pope. The encyclical contained a specific reference to the Oriental Society. As could have been expected, the encyclical met with no favourable response among the Orthodox.
Immediately after the founding of the Oriental Society, Terlecki went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. The purpose of the journey was to acquaint himself with the condition of the Christian communities in the Near East. It seems that this was the occasion on which he was given the title "apostolic missionary." After a brief visit to Jerusalem, Terlecki stopped for two months in Istanbul. His guide there was his old comrade-in-arms from the Volhynian Cavalry Regiment, Michal Czajkowski, a prolific author of historical romances on the Ukrainian Cossacks and by that time Prince Czartoryski's chief political agent in the Ottoman Empire. On his return trip Terlecki took the overland route. In Belgrade he had an interview with Prince Alexander Karadjordjevic, the ruler of Serbia.
After his return to Rome, in March 1848, Terlecki found the Oriental Society dormant because of his own absence and the departure of Bishop Lucquet, appointed nuncio to Switzerland. This was the "mad year" when almost the entire continent was swept by revolutionary upheavals. Despite his many grave preoccupations, Pius IX again granted Terlecki several gracious audiences. In the course of one of them Pius IX told Terlecki: "I will appoint for you [Catholics of the Ruthenian Slavonic rite] a cardinal; I will appoint [for you] a separate patriarch."10 The Pope enjoined Terlecki to submit a new version of his memorandum. It was printed in a limited number of copies, together with the opinions of four ecclesiastical dignitaries. The whole matter was treated on a strictly confidential basis, and Terlecki himself was able to see only briefly the printed text of his memorandum. A committee of seven cardinals was to review Terlecki's proposals, and to formulate specific recommendations, by 17 November. But the work of the commission was interrupted by the outbreak of revolutionary disturbances in Rome in November 1848 and the flight of Pius IX and the Curia from the Eternal City.
Terlecki was instructed by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to use this enforced interval for a visit to the Greek Catholic dioceses" of the Habsburg Empire, in Galicia and northeastern Hungary, and to report on conditions there. Personally, he wished to see his son in Cracow. But Terlecki was able to reach only Dresden in Saxony; the Austrian frontiers were closed because of revolution and civil war in the country. During his stay in Saxony Terlecki established contacts with some Lusatian Sorb leaders. This acquaintance with the representatives of the smallest Slavic nationality strengthened his Pan-Slavic proclivities. On the outbreak of an overt revolution in Saxony in May 1849, Terlecki was arrested on suspicion of being a foreign revolutionary agent. He spent one month in prison together with Mikhail Bakunin, who had played an active part in the Saxon upheaval. Upon his release, Terlecki was ordered to leave Saxony in twenty-four hours. His mission unfulfilled, he returned to Paris.12
For the next six years, from 1849 to 1855, Terlecki lived in Paris. There he published, in 1849, his programmatic pamphlet, Slowo Rusina ku wszej braci szczepu siowianskiego o rzeczach siowianskich (Address of a Ruthenian to All Brethren of the Slavic Race on Things Slavic).13 The pamphlet, which appeared anonymously, contains the fullest exposition of Terlecki's religious and political ideas. With his wonted energy, Abbe Terlecki (to give him his French appellation) soon established relations with many leading ecclesiastical and lay personalities. In 1852, on Mickiewicz's recommendation, he was granted an audience by Prince Louis Napoleon, the president of the republic. Terlecki's main efforts during his Paris years were centred on the Oriental Society for the Union of All the Christians of the East, founded on his initiative. Although based on the precedent of the earlier Oriental Society in Rome, it was technically a new organization, constituted on 29 April 1850. The Archbishop of Paris, Sibour, accepted the position of honorary president; the Duke Louis Cadore de Champagny (the son of a foreign minister of Napoleon I, a member of the Chamber of Peers during the July Monarchy, and former treasurer of the Oriental Society in Rome) became president, and Terlecki vice-president. The celebrated Dominican preacher, Lacordaire, in a sermon delivered in Notre Dame cathedral (14 April 1850), called on French Catholics to support the work of the Society with their donations. Also in 1850 the first Eastern Catholic church was inaugurated in Paris, with Terlecki as its rector. The church, named after Sts. Cyril and Methodius, was located at rue Babylone 69. According to a report in the Lusatian Sorb organ, Jahrb¨u;cher fur slavische Literatur und Wissenschaft (Bautzen 1852), "on the iconostasis of the new church one finds the icons of the sainted Slavic apostles, Cyril and Methodius, of St. Olha and of St. Volodymyr, the prince of Kiev who evangelized Rus'. Every Sunday a liturgy is celebrated in this church in the Slavonic rite, and a sermon is preached in Ruthenian."14 The Oriental Society attempted to publish a periodical, but only one issue of the Annales de la Societe Orientale pour l'Union de tous les chretiens d'Orient (July 1853) appeared. Under the auspices of the Society, and under Terlecki's direction, an institute was founded in Paris for the education of future missionary priests who would eventually work among Eastern Christians. The pupils lived at the institute while attending classes at the Saint Sulpice seminary as externs; from Terlecki they received instruction in the Church Slavonic language and in the usages of the Eastern church. But the number of pupils never exceeded ten, and only two were finally ordained. Both were young Galician Ukrainians who in 1849 had joined the Polish volunteers fighting against Austria in Hungary, and had gone to France after the defeat of the Hungarian revolution.15 One of Terlecki's proteges, Iuliian Kuilovsky, was later to make a distinguished ecclesiastical career: he became Bishop of Stanyslaviv (today Ivano-Frankivsk; 1891-8), and toward the end of his life briefly occupied the see of the Metropolitan of Halych (1899- 1900).16
Despite his multifarious and apparently successful activities, Terlecki's position in Paris was anything but easy. He met with suspicion and hostility from many quarters. He was charged simultaneously with such contrary things as being a red revolutionary inciting European powers against Russia and a crypto-Orthodox and Russian agent trying to subvert the Catholic church and the Polish nationality. Terlecki's support among the Polish emigration came from the so-called Hotel Lambert, i.e., the circle of Prince Adam Czartoryski. In 1850 Terlecki was considered for the position of co-editor of a propaganda paper in Ukrainian which two of Czartoryski's collaborators, Michal Czajkowski and Franciszek Duchinski (both natives of Ukraine and strong Ukrainophiles), were planning to start either in Istanbul or on Corfu.17 But Terlecki felt increasingly disinclined to subordinate his action to Polish political goals.18 Attacks on Terlecki in the Polish press, published abroad and in Poznania, multiplied, and he had to engage in rebuttals and distasteful polemics.19 To make his situation even more difficult, he no longer had the full trust and support of Rome. His old protector, Pius IX, chastened by the experiences of 1848-9, lost interest in innovative projects. During Terlecki's repeated visits to Rome, the Pope showed him personal kindness, but there was no more talk of the 1846 and 1848 memoranda. Terlecki's former favour with the Pope must have evoked many jealousies, and his current behaviour created new resentments. A circular letter of the Oriental Society sent under Terlecki's signature to Eastern Catholic bishops contained criticism of the work of Latin missionaries in the lands of Eastern Christendom. This was an old idea of Terlecki's, to be found already in his 1846 memorandum. But now the powerful Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith took offence at Terlecki's undiplomatic frankness. He was reprimanded, and the papal nuncio in Paris was advised by the Congregation to keep a watchful eye on Terlecki and his Oriental Society.20 It appears that by the early 1850s he was looked upon by his superiors as a difficult man and a potential troublemaker. The second Oriental Society, in contrast to the first, was only tolerated by Rome, and never formally approved or granted official status. Thus Terlecki felt that his efforts were obstructed by the Vatican bureaucracy.
In addition to all these worries Terlecki experienced personal grief: the death of his son at the age of eighteen.21 Weary in his soul and disgusted by the futility of an emigre's existence, he had no wish to remain permanently in Paris. He applied for permission to go to Bulgaria as a missionary, but in view of the unstable political situation in the Balkans caused by the Crimean War, the request was refused by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith.22 But Terlecki had already conceived an alternative plan: to settle among the Galician Ukrainians, a people of the same nationality and religion as his own. From Paris he had established contacts with some Galician leaders, such as Hryhorii Iakhymovych, the Bishop of Przemysl (Peremyshl), and had contributed dispatches to the Lviv newspaper Zoria Halytska.23 In 1855 he dissolved his Paris Institute and donated its library, archives, and other moveable possessions to the Narodnyi Dim (Ruthenian National Home) in Lviv.
Terlecki left Western Europe, never to return, in September 1855. His decision was to go to the Ukrainian areas of the Austrian Empire and to enter a monastery there. Before renouncing the world, however, he wished to revisit the Holy Land and neighbouring countries. Terlecki's second Near Eastern journey lasted about a year and a half, and its itinerary included the following major stations: Malta, Alexandria, Cairo, Jerusalem, Beirut, Damascus, Smyrna, and Istanbul. In Jerusalem Terlecki was called to render medical services to the Turkish pasha, the governor of the city. After three months in Jerusalem, he went to Beirut, where he again remained several months. There he made friends among the Maronites, Syrian Christians whose church was united with Rome, and had an opportunity to assist at the election of the Maronite patriarch. From Beirut Terlecki mailed a long letter (19 May 1856) to the Galician scholar and civic leader, Rev. Iakiv Holovatsky, in which he described some of his travel experiences and expressed his hopes of finding a permanent refuge among Ruthenian compatriots.24 After having reached Istanbul, Terlecki took a boat across the Black Sea and up the Danube to Belgrade. From there he crossed into Austria in the spring of 1857. He is mentioned in a letter from Vienna (26 April 1857) by Ivan Holovatsky to his brother Iakiv in Lviv: "Father Hipolit Terlecki, a mixture of a Pole and a Ukrainian, arrived here recently in an Orthodox, or rather Greek, garb."25
Terlecki's desire to settle in Galicia was frustrated by the veto of the provincial governor, Count Agenor Goluchowski, an exponent of the interests of the Polish aristocracy and a determined opponent of the Ukrainian national revival. Instead of Galicia, Terlecki went to the Ukrainian area of north-eastern Hungary, the so-called Hungarian Rus', known today as Carpatho-Ukraine or Transcarpathia. There, in 1857, he entered the Basilian Order, adopting a new religious name, Vladimir. Thus the former Abbe Hipolit Terlecki was transformed into Father Vladimir Terlecki, OSBM (Ordo Sancti Basilii Magni).
We are only imperfectly informed about the circumstances of Terlecki's life in Austria. He had turned fifty in 1858, but was still physically vigorous and mentally alert as ever. In time he was entrusted with the position of hegumen of the Basilian monastery in Mala Bereznytsia, and later in Krasnyi Brid. But the widely travelled man, who was used to the great capitals of Paris and Rome, must have found the cloistered existence in the Carpathian wilderness confining. In a letter to Iakiv Holovatsky he complained about the lack of news and of an intellectually stimulating environment.26 Occasionally he contributed to the Lviv newspaper Slovo. Trips to Galicia provided diversions, and became more frequent after 1859, when Goluchowski was summoned to become a cabinet minister in Vienna.
Vladimir Terlecki's situation remained precarious. Gotuchowski's attitude toward him was a token of the hostility of the Polish ruling class in Galicia, in whose eyes Terlecki was a renegade. But he was also mistrusted in the circles of the Greek Catholic clergy, for whom a man of his background and experience remained something of a riddle. There is evidence in contemporary memoirs of a lingering suspicion that Terlecki was in reality a "Conrad Wallenrod," i.e., a Pole in disguise working covertly to the detriment of the good Ruthenian people.27 His long hair, flowing beard, and Orthodox-style cassock contrasted with the shaven faces and Latinized clothing of the local Greek Catholic clergy. For Terlecki this was an expression of his adherence to the traditions of Eastern Christianity, but his exotic appearance made him conspicuous and scandalized many.28 Still, owing to his warm, affectionate personality, he was, as always, able to attract people and form new friendships. He found a devoted friend in Rev. Oleksander Dukhnovych, the Transcarpathian poet, educator, and national "awakener." Dukhnovych wrote a poem in honour of Terlecki in which he expressed the wish that the old "Ruthenian champion" (ruskyi bohatyr) might find "friendship and peace" in his Carpathian mountain retreat.29
But peace was not to be Terlecki's lot. Soon he again found himself in the midst of public controversy in connection with the purist, or ritualist, movement. This was a drive by a group of Greek Catholic clergymen to purify the liturgy and rituals of their Church of all Latin accretions which had gradually crept in since the Union of Brest (1596), and especially since the Synod of Zamosc (Zamostia) (1720). For Terlecki this was an old pet idea. Already in his Address of a Ruthenian he had protested against the contamination of the rituals of the Eastern-rite Catholic churches by the usages of the Latin church. Now he raised the issue again. The Ukrainian church historian. Bishop Iuliian Pelesh, a contemporary of the events, names Terlecki as the chief instigator of the ritualist movement of the 1860s.30 His involvement in this controversy earned Terlecki a new reprimand from the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and a warning not to stir up discord between Catholics of the two rites in Galicia.31 He was advised by his superiors to return to the monastery in Transcarpathia.
There is no reason to doubt that Terlecki sincerely wished to spend the remainder of his days among his compatriots in Austria. But a train of events beyond his control was to give a completely new direction to his life.32 In 1867 the Austro-Hungarian Compromise transformed Hungary into a self-governing state. The Budapest government and the chauvinistic Magyar ruling class immediately embarked on a policy of repression and Magyarization of the national minorities, and on a hunt after real or imaginary Pan-Slavists. The Transcarpathian Ukrainians were the weakest among the non-Magyar nationalities of Hungary and, consequently, were exposed to the greatest pressure. Terlecki was too conspicuous a figure not to attract the attention of the Hungarian administration. In 1871 the Ministry of the Interior in Budapest requested his transfer from the Basilian monastery in Krasnyi Brid to that in Mukachevo, a larger town, where he could be watched more closely. Six months later a denunciation was lodged against Terlecki (we do not know its author) in which he was charged with being a secret agent of Russia. The only basis for the accusation was the fact that he received books from Russia. On the strength of this, Terlecki was arrested. He was kept in prison only briefly, as there was insufficient evidence for a formal indictment, but upon his release he was ordered to leave Hungary immediately.33 This outrage must have shocked Terlecki profoundly, and it induced him to take a radical step. He sent a letter of protest to the Hungarian interior minister in which he declared his innocence. But as he was being unjustly persecuted, Terlecki stated, he preferred to surrender himself to the justice of his native country, against which he had indeed offended in his youth. Simultaneously he addressed a petition to Emperor Alexander II, put himself at the tsar's mercy, and asked permission to return to Russia. The request was granted, and in September 1872 he went to Russia. Upon his arrival in Kiev, still during the same month, he was admitted to the fold of the Russian Orthodox Church.
At that time Terlecki was sixty-four years old. He still had sixteen years to live. The story of the rest of his life can be told briefly. At first he resided in the Mykhailivsky monastery in Kiev and worked as the secretary of the Slavic Benevolent Committee in that city. In 1874 Terlecki went to Italy with a Russian aristocrat, Prince Demidov, and spent five years as a private chaplain at Demidov's estate near Florence. This must have been a pleasant sinecure for the old man, and we can only wonder with what feelings Terlecki revisited Italy, the scene of his early activities. In 1879 he returned to Kiev. After Prince Demidov's death, his widow granted Terlecki a pension which secured him financially for the rest of his days. Next Terlecki moved to Zhytomyr, in his native province of Volhynia, where he had a friend and protector in the person of Archbishop Dimitrii. When the latter was transferred to Odessa, Terlecki followed him in 1881. The Russian Orthodox Church had granted Terlecki the rank of archimandrite. He was associated, probably in an honorary capacity, with the Odessa theological seminary, and then lived in that city in retirement. During those last years he wrote his "Zapiski arkhimandrita. . . " (Reminiscences).34
Father Vladimir Terlecki died in Odessa on 17 January 1888, at the age of eighty.
Works
Terlecki was not a professional writer. Still, his literary and journalistic productions are far from negligible. In presenting a catalogue of Terlecki's writings, my purpose is to give some indication of the scope of his intellectual interests, and also to provide guidelines for future research.
Only two of Terlecki's works were accessible to me. These are the programmatic political pamphlet in Polish, The Address of a Ruthenian (1849),35 which will be examined in detail in the next section, and his Russian-language "Reminiscences."36 They possess considerable value from the historical and literary points of view. The Polish historian Marceli Handelsman stresses their reliability.37 They are written in a simple, straightforward, and yet vigorous manner, without any trace of self-advertisement or special pleading. Their outstanding feature is, perhaps, a tone of emotional detachment. They give the impression of being the work of an old man who has retained a fresh mind and a vivid memory of past events, but who reports the story of his stormy youth and mature manhood from a great distance, as if from another shore.
During his years in Austria Terlecki published several books in Ukrainian: a translation of Thomas a Kempis's Imitation of Christ;38 a volume of translations of the poems of Bohdan Zaleski;39 a collection of sermons;40 and a description of his second journey to Palestine and the Near East.41 The last work was planned in three volumes, but only two fascicles of the first volume appeared in print. According to a cryptic note of the bibliographer, Ivan Levytsky, the publication was discontinued because "the sequel did not suit the taste of the Galician-Ruthenian public."42 Also the apparently non-controversial translations of the poems of Zaleski were to cause Terlecki unexpected worry. Bohdan Jozef Zaleski, a Romantic poet and leading exponent of the "Ukrainian School" in Polish literature, was a friend of Terlecki's from his Paris days. Terlecki dedicated the volume to the author "in remembrance of an unshakeable friendship." But Zaleski disowned the translation.43 The reason for this rebuff, which must have been painful to Terlecki, was rather peculiar. Zaleski was angered that the book was printed in the Cyrillic script. This was a time when many Polish patriots were convinced that Ukrainian was a peasant dialect of the Polish language. Consequently, they demanded that the Latin-Polish alphabet be used in Ukrainian publications and denounced the Cyrillic alphabet as a device of tsarist Russia.
During the decade from 1861 to 1872 Terlecki published about a dozen articles in the Lviv newspaper Slovo.44 Some of them were fairly long, as they ran over several issues. Judging by their titles, they dealt with religious and political topics or contained descriptions of Terlecki's former travels.
After his move to Russia, Terlecki brought out a little book based on his observations in Transcarpathia, entitled Ugorskaia Rus' i voz-rozhdenie soznaniia narodnosti mezhdu russkimi v Vengrii (Hungarian Rus' and the Rebirth of National Consciousness among the Ruthenians in Hungary, 1874).45 To my knowledge, this was the last of Terlecki's works to appear during his lifetime. The "Reminiscences" were published posthumously. None of Terlecki's writings has ever been reprinted.
Political Thought
The fullest exposition of Terlecki's political ideas is to be found in his book-length tract, The Address of a Ruthenian. Its ornate style, which smacks of pulpit oratory, contrasts perceptibly with the matter-of-fact, simple narrative of the later "Reminiscences."
Terlecki treated political issues as a churchman. In discussing the history of various Slavic nations, he approached it mainly from the viewpoint of their religious development. Religion was for him the foundation of civil society. According to Terlecki, a sound civic life was possible only if based on the one true religion, Catholicism. His philosophy of history was providential. God has appointed a specific mission for every nation, and His hand directs all nations toward the fulfillment of their predetermined destinies. When encountering historical occurrences and trends which seemed to diverge from the providential plan, Terlecki consoled himself with the assurance that God's will is inscrutable.
Terlecki's basic religious-ecclesiastical orientation, however, did not make him reactionary. "We declare that we are sincere and hearty supporters of every kind of decent civic liberty and equality. We respect the will of the people and we bow before it, because we frequently perceive in it a divine inspiration . . . but we have never been and are not its idolators; we do not recognize it as infallible, which pertains to God alone" (5). Thus the political creed of Terlecki may be fairly defined as Christian-democratic. He paid tribute to Pius IX, who, "inspired by Heaven and understanding the needs of the time, introduces salutary improvements," and who, "by uniting freedom with faith, lays the cornerstone of a future ordering of society" (3).
The beginning of the Address strangely resembles that of the Communist Manifesto. "A specter is haunting Europe -- the specter of Communism," Marx and Engels proclaimed in 1848. Writing a year later, Terlecki stated that out of the conflagration of the 1848 Revolution has risen "a new element, dormant for many centuries and completely unknown to Western peoples. . . . This is the all-Slavic element, called in Europe Pan-Slavism" (1-2). This phenomenon, Terlecki added, has evoked great apprehension, and is being given diverse and contradictory interpretations. He proposed to expound his own insights and convictions concerning the meaning of the Slavic renascence. He intended to do it in his capacity as a "son of Rus', not the least among the branches of the Slavic family" (2).
Terlecki proceeded by drawing a sketch of the history of the Slavic peoples. This resume, which forms the largest part of the book, shows that he was well-read and knowledgeable. Usually he did not cite his authorities, but he referred occasionally to Nestor's chronicle and Karamzin, and also mentioned such leading Slavic scholars as Dobrovsky, Safarik, and Kopitar. Terlecki had both erudition and a comprehensive vision, yet his approach to history was essentially uncritical. He had the capacity to believe what he wanted to believe. Thus, for instance, he assumed that the Illyrians and other ancient peoples of the Balkan peninsula were Slavs. By upholding this theory, long discredited among serious scholars, Terlecki was able to assert that the Gospel had been first preached to the Slavs by St. Paul (because he had stayed in Thessalonica), and that St. Jerome and the Emperor Justinian were Slavs (because of their Illyrian origin). He also accepted as historically true the legend about the visit of the apostle St. Andrew to the future site of Kiev, and believed that Sts. Cyril and Methodius, the originators of the Slavonic liturgy, were themselves Slavs. Terlecki's account becomes more accurate and reliable when dealing with more recent history, but the selection and interpretation of facts is always dominated by a strong religious bias.
According to Terlecki, all Slavs had been converted to Christianity in the Catholic faith, although under two rites, the Latin and the Greek Slavonic; Cyril and Methodius were Catholics, and their work was endorsed by the pope. In addition, Rus' had been Catholic from the beginning, because its conversion occurred before the split between the Latin and Greek churches. But "soon the Greek schism blew its murderous breath on Slavic lands and infected sincere Slavic souls with the poison of hatred against the true church of Christ" (15). It never crossed Terlecki's mind that the separation of churches might have been caused by deep cultural and social factors, and that responsibility for it might have been divided. For him, the schism was due exclusively to the ambition and pride of the Greek patriarchs. The fall of the Byzantine Empire and the humiliation of the Greek Church by the Turkish infidels was a just retribution of heaven on the perpetrators of the schism. As far as the Russian Orthodox Church was concerned, it had been chastised for breaking away from Catholic unity by enslavement to the state. "The [Russian] church crawls supinely before secular power; it is dominated by the whim of the ruler, or even by the will of his deputy, some general or colonel, who fills the tsar's place in the Holy Synod" (10). Terlecki addressed the following rhetorical questions to the "separated brethren'':
Look for yourself, dearest brethren, is it not true that Orthodoxy has everywhere fallen into a heavy bondage to secular power, and is not this bondage heaviest in those countries where the government claims to be Orthodox? Because there it has despoiled Mother Church of all possessions, it has sacrilegiously erected itself as head of the church, rules her contemptuously through a colonel of dragoons or hussars, and holds the entire clergy in humiliation and ignorance. Is it not true that Orthodoxy is everywhere an instrument of obscurantism and of material and spiritual despotism? (83)To put it briefly, Orthodoxy was nothing but "a petrified, corpse-like church, which gives no sign of life save hatred of Catholicism" (18).So far, Terlecki's ideas are rather commonplace and do not transcend the limits of typical nineteenth-century Catholic apologetics. He displayed more originality in dealing with the question of the status of Eastern Catholic churches, which was for him a matter of special concern. The Catholic church is one, Terlecki declares, but it consists of several rites, none of which is superior to any other. "We consider that the pope, as pope, belongs no more to the Latin than to any other rite. As the successor of St. Peter, he is the universal bishop, and, therefore, the high priest of every rite" (21). The Eastern churches are fully Catholic, but at the same time in full possession of their distinct traditions, which differentiate them from the Latin rite. He appeals to Orthodox Ukrainians with these sincerely felt words:
You adhere with your souls to your rite, which you celebrate in the ancestral language. We, however, who are writing this Address, are of the same rite, and we also celebrate all rituals in the same language and according to the same tradition. We are proud to be attached with our heart to all the customs of our forefathers, beginning with Sts. Cyril, Methodius, Olha, Volodymyr, Antonii Pechersky, and others, who, like ourselves, were Catholics and of the Greek Slavonic Rite. (84- 5)But Terlecki was painfully aware that reality often diverged from this ideal model, and he stated boldly: "We Slavs of the Greek Slavonic rite have many grievances against Rome" (21). He exonerated the papacy from any direct blame: the popes have many times expressed respect for Eastern traditions, and have defended the rights of the Oriental Catholic churches. But the good intentions of the popes have been frustrated bythe tendencies and efforts of a part of the Latin clergy, and sometimes even of the high dignitaries of the Roman church. Having a one-sided view of the church, derived from the perspective of their own rite, and guided by an intemperate and unwise zeal, they have wished and tried to reduce the whole church to the one Latin form, and they have thereby caused her incalculable harm. . . . Thus the Eastern-rite churches have not so far found in Rome sufficient protection and cover against the pressure of the Latin rite. (21-2)But Terlecki was confident that these errors could be rectified, and he did not hesitate to propose definite measures to that effect. The proposals formulated in the Address are identical to those already to be found in the memoranda to Pius IX of 1846 and 1848: the appointment of cardinals representing all Eastern rites, and the formation within the Roman Curia of a special congregation for the affairs of the Oriental churches.46 Moreover, the term "Uniates" should no longer be applied to Eastern Catholics. This term was inappropriate, and even offensive, because it implied incomplete catholicity, as if these rites were only externally tacked onto the Catholic church, instead of being her organic parts. "What would people say if England and Germany, after a return from Protestantism to the bosom of the Western church, were to be labelled Uniate? Surely the whole world would consider this nonsense. And yet this very nonsense has been perpetuated, and is still being perpetuated to this day, against us" (46).Terlecki discussed in some detail the history of three Slavic nations, Poland, Russia, and Rus' (Ukraine). He traced the rise of Poland from her medieval beginnings to her position as the leading power of Eastern Europe, attained through the union with Lithuania and Rus'. But the powerful and brilliant Polish Commonwealth of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries already contained the seeds of its future downfall. The primary cause of decline was Poland's betrayal of her Slavic vocation. "Constantly drawing close to Western countries, she began to detach herself from the Slavic family" (37). Poland abandoned western Slavic tribes, including her own Silesia, to Germanization, and failed to provide leadership to eastern and southern Slavs in the struggle against the Tatars and Turks.47 Poland's second failure was the restriction of liberty to the noble class only, while the masses were kept in degrading bondage. In consequence, the freedom of the nobility degenerated into aristocratic license, while the peasants did not even consider themselves Polish nationals. Thirdly, Poland had mishandled the Union of Brest. Ruthenian bishops were not admitted to the Senate, and parish priests were treated with contempt by the landowners. The Jesuits, characterized by an intolerant exclusiveness, had used their influence to seduce the Ruthenian nobility to the Latin rite, in contravention of papal injunctions. ".Our rite was condemned to become that of the peasantry, while the Latin one was to be for the gentry" (48). The circumstance that the Ruthenian Catholic Church was deprived in the Polish Commonwealth of an educated, representative social stratum facilitated its later destruction by the Russian schism.
The partitions of Poland were, therefore, a just punishment for her sins. Subsequent insurrections and the factious, convulsive efforts of the Polish exiles only plunged the nation into greater misery. "It must, however, be acknowledged that by her sufferings and groans Poland has awakened national consciousness among the other peoples of the Slavic race, which have been slumbering in a long sleep of indifference. She is the only one among the whole Slavic race to have raised the banner of social progress, under the watchwords of liberty, equality, and fraternity" (41).
Turning to the second great Slavic nation, Terlecki asserted that the Russian state had been formed under the impact of the Tatar overlords in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. "This was the school in which the grand dukes of Moscow learned the arts of autocratic despotism" (61). The history of Russia is that of the rulers rather than of the people. "The entire state is like a dead machine, moved by the tsar's hand, enlivened only by his will" (67). The Russian government, "the most cunning and the most treacherous, flexible yet pitiless, ready to use the most immoral means, stubborn in the pursuit of its goals, has been set by destiny on the course of conquest" (61). Muscovite autocracy has subjugated the Orthodox church and transformed the aristocracy of the boiars into a bureaucracy of chinovniks. Peter, "called the Great," borrowed from Europe only that which served the consolidation of autocracy and the increase of the power of the state; he gave Russia a deceptive European appearance. "The [Russian] system of administration is thoroughly immoral, it is based on exploitation and theft, and it has fostered spying and bribery on an unheard-of scale" (67). A total suppression of freedom of expression and "a public education capable of training slaves only" (68) are the tsarist government's favourite devices. Moreover, tsarism "strives to impose on all distinct nationalities the Russian language and nationality. Therefore, the Ruthenians and Poles suffer also in this respect a great oppression" (72). Everything which pertains to the official sphere -- in the army, the civil service, and the schools -- must be transacted in Russian, and serves the policy of Russification. The languages and customs of the non-Russian nationalities find refuge only in peasant huts and the privacy of family life.48
It is to be noted that Terlecki's anti-Russian diatribe was directed only against the Russian state and the tsarist regime, not against the Russian people. The latter "possess all the fine traits of the Slavic character" (72). On this important point Terlecki's interpretation differed radically from the theories of his colleague from the Hotel Lambert circle, Franciszek Duchinski. According to Duchinski, the Russians, in contradistinction to both Ukrainians and Poles, did not belong at all to the Slavic "race"; in reality, they were linguistically Slavicized "Turanians" and displayed an altogether non-Slavic national character.49
Terlecki's low opinion of the Russian Orthodox Church has already been observed. On the other hand, he spoke with noticeable sympathy of the Old Believers, whom he valued as a movement of popular resistance against the corrupt official church, and he hinted that the Old Believers might be susceptible to the attraction of Catholicism.50 The tsarist state, strongly identified with Orthodoxy, was, according to Terlecki, implacably hostile to the Catholic church, but especially to its Eastern rite.
The Russian government has furiously attacked, in the first place, the Greek Slavonic Catholic Church, whose very existence was like a reproach of conscience to the Russian church. The world knows the treacherous and cruel persecutions under which the major part of that church has succumbed. . . . The two persecutions under Catherine [II] and Nicholas [I] have deprived the Catholic church of some five million faithful. (71)Therefore, "one can feel only pity for the delusion of many Catholics who hope for a conversion of the emperor and the people of Russia" (72).51 Short of a miracle, this cannot occur as long as the present political system in Russia persists. It is true that the tsarist government entertains diplomatic relations with Rome, but its purpose is to elicit the Holy See's acquiescence in the faits accomplis perpetrated against the Eastern Catholics. "And we must confess with pain that in all the dealings between the Russian government and Rome, including the latest transaction (if it may be so called) signed by Cardinal Lambruschini and Bliudov,52 Rome has always been the deceived and duped party, with great harm to the Faith" (71).The history of the third great Slavic nation, Rus' (Ukraine), was, according to Terlecki, closely interwoven with that of her neighbours, Poland and Russia. But he insisted on the existence of a separate Ruthenian (Ukrainian) national identity. "Rus' was absorbed [in the fourteenth century] into Lithuania, and later into Poland, but she always retained her distinct national characteristics" (55). Terlecki asserted even more emphatically the Ruthenians' distinctiveness from the Russians.
In the first place, we consider it a duty of our conscience to protest against the fraudulent incorporation of Ruthenian nationality, history, and literature into Russian nationality, history, and literature. The Russian government would like to convince everybody, including the Ruthenians themselves, that the latter were always the same as the Russians. Russian writers, prompted by their government or terrorized by censorship and the fear of punishment, try to outdo one another in spreading this opinion. This act of robbery, which the Russian government perpetrates in the field of history and letters, equals those which it commits in stealing territories. We, however, in the name of all of Rus', most solemnly protest against this robbery. Our common people, too, oppose it by the term moskal (Muscovite), which they use to differentiate the Great Russians from themselves. (51-2)Terlecki considered the medieval Kievan State as appertaining to Ruthenian (Ukrainian) and not to Russian national history. In point of fact, "the land and the population which served as the nucleus of present-day Russia used to belong to the old Ruthenian state. . . . But the spirit and the direction of development [of the two nations] were altogether different" (52). After the Mongol invasions, Rus' merged with Lithuania and Poland, and the Ruthenian nobility gradually became Polonized.But the people retained their native traits, and they possessed in Zaporozhian Cossackdom the basis of a social development which conformed with their hearts' aspirations. The Zaporozhian Cossacks were like a military order of Rus', and they formed a truly Christian and Slavic community. Free and equal, they appointed leaders through elections by all. Toward elected leaders, they were admirably obedient. (56)Terlecki spoke with enthusiasm of the Cossack struggles with the Crimean Tatars and of their daring naval expeditions against the Ottoman Empire. According to Terlecki, Cossackdom, which "during that era had concentrated in itself the Ruthenian nationality," was "a seed rich in promise for all Slavs"; it was predestined "to occupy a high position in Europe, because it had already begun to implement Christian principles [of freedom and equality] in life and social relations. It might have attained permanence, and thus it would also have saved Poland" (56). The reasons why these potentialities did not materialize were religious schism and the failure to establish a Ruthenian Catholic patriarchate in Kiev. The imposition of the Latin rite by the Polish Jesuits and the oppression of Ruthenian Cossacks and peasants by the Polish nobility caused a reaction in favour of Orthodoxy. Protracted Cossack-Polish wars ensued, which were the cause of the downfall of both adversaries, from which Russia cleverly drew profit.A large part of the Cossacks, however, felt such a strong revulsion against the servile Russian element that after the annexation of Ukraine53 they emigrated to Turkey, and preferred to preserve old liberties under the protection of their [former] greatest enemies than to submit to the yoke prepared for them by the Russian government. Turkey granted them all their ancient liberties, and until 1828 a free Cossackdom continued to exist on the Danube. (57)
A basic tenet of Terlecki's interpretation of Ukrainian history was his conviction that Eastern Catholicism -- combining loyalty to the Church Universal with adherence to the Greek Slavonic rite -- had been chosen by Providence as the national religion of the Ruthenian (Ukrainian) people. He believed that "even after the breaking of unity with Rome by Cerularius, Rus' remained Catholic and for a long time hesitated between Rome and Constantinople" (54). He listed lovingly (not without exaggeration and stretching of historical evidence) all the instances of rapprochement between Rus' and the Roman Catholic church. In connection with the Council of Florence (1439) and the Union adopted by it, Terlecki exclaimed rapturously: "Let us rejoice in the sight of the righteousness of our Rus', which at this council, in the person of her worthy representative, [Metropolitan] Isidore, as well as in later times, has always demonstrated her willingness to recognize and to accept [Catholic] truth. God willing, Rus' will become the great intermediary between the Roman church and our separated Slavic brethren. Glory be to thee, eternal glory, oh our Country, we may indeed be proud in calling ourselves thy sons!" (19).
Having completed the survey of Slavic history, Terlecki proceeded to sketch the present condition of the Slavic peoples and to formulate proposals for their future organization. Because there are more than 80 million Slavs, "Nobody can any more deny today the existence of a Slavic movement" (73). Three factors have chiefly contributed to the Slavic revival in recent decades: first, Poland's sufferings and struggle for independence, which have had strong repercussions among other Slavic peoples; second, the labours of Czech scholars, which have awakened interest in Slavic historical and literary studies; and third, the wars of Russia with Turkey and the campaigns of Russian armies south of the Danube, which have kindled the hopes of the Balkan Slavs. So far, however, the Slavic movement has "lacked a focus, a distinct flag under which it could unite" (76). The Slavs are, regrettably, divided by denominational and national differences. "Thus the Slavic movement, although encompassing a vast territory and a huge population, remains disorganized and uncoordinated" (78). The Russian government has in the past, for its own selfish purposes, encouraged the stirrings among the foreign Slavs. But "Russian Pan-Slavism is in reality tsar-Slavism" (73). The libertarian character of the Slavic movement inevitably alienates it from official Russia. The tsarist government apprehends the danger of a national rebirth of the Slavic peoples under its rule. "This explains why in recent years the Russian government has become indifferent toward Pan-Slavism, why it has prohibited school teachers from spreading this idea, and why it has severely punished its most zealous partisans, the Ruthenians Shevchenko, Kulesha (sic), and others, by condemning them to perpetual hard labour in the mines and to lifelong military service" (77).54
The Slavic peoples possess the feeling of racial kinship, but simultaneously they are aware of their individual national identities. The merger of all Slavs into a single nationality is undesirable, as it could make them a danger to mankind. "In our opinion, the organization of Slavdom could be very much advanced ... by its differentiation into six major nationalities, viz., the Polish, the Czecho-Moravian, the Illyrian-Croatian-Serbian, the Ruthenian, the Bulgarian, and the Russian. Into them should be incorporated all the minor subdivisions" (80). These six leading Slavic nations should unite in a broader federation.
We postulate, therefore, a federal union of the entire Slavic race. The striving toward such a union is in evidence even now. This will be a great Slavic union, in the spirit of God, and with free development of the particular nationalities. . . . Every Slavic nation will organize according to its own needs and will possess a separate government. These will be fused in a central government which will provide unity and direction to the whole. (93)The institutions of the future Slavic federation would be democratic. Terlecki believed that the Slavs' innate "inclination toward democracy became manifest whenever they succeeded in throwing off the [foreign] yoke" (74). "The Slavic spirit calls for an elective authority" (93).55 Terlecki did not advance any specific recommendations for the ordering of the future Slavic commonwealth. He stressed, however, that Slavic democracy would differ from that of the Western countries by the absence of materialistic greed, selfish interests, and political factionalism. Elections will be prepared for not by partisan agitation but by fasting, penitence, and public prayers. The voters and the elected, the people, the council (legislature), and the government will be organically united by one pervasive religious spirit.Terlecki assigned to individual Slavic peoples specific tasks within the framework of the great common enterprise. "To Poland belongs the leadership. Among the Slavic family, she has acquired the greatest merits in the sight of God and mankind. She has many times protected the Church of God and Europe against grave dangers. Of all the Slavic peoples she possesses the greatest spiritual resources in her bards,56 her literature, and her legislature" (89). Poland, it is true, has deviated from her vocation by her subservience to Western influences and her indifference to the Slavic cause. But if she repents, she will at once resume her place at the head of the Slavic peoples, especially those of the Latin persuasion. The peculiar vocation of the Czechs is to provide an example to all Slavs in the field of intellectual endeavour and scholarship. Moreover, they must bear the brunt of the defence of the Slavic world against the pressure of the Germans. The "Illyrians" (i.e., the Yugoslav peoples) and the Bulgarians are predestined to bring to an end Turkish rule in Europe and "to plant the cross, the symbol of salvation, liberty, and social progress. . . on the tops of the minarets" (92). The Illyrians will create a Slavic fleet on the Adriatic, as the Bulgarians and the Ruthenians will do on the Black Sea, the Poles on the Baltic, and the Russians on the Arctic Sea. This will make possible "the establishment of a Slavic naval power, relations with other nations overseas, and the supplying of the Slavs with Asian and African products and the rich foods of Western Europe" (91).57 Finally, the "Catholic-national-Slavic spirit" will also penetrate Russia, consume the Mongol element in her government, transform her present anti-Christian social structure, "and the Russian nation will then enter the ranks of the united, fraternal Slavic peoples" (92). A regenerated Russia will become the apostle of Christianity and civilization to Asia.
Terlecki advocated close Polish-Ukrainian co-operation. He considered Poland the natural leader of the "Latin" Slavic peoples, and Rus'-Ukraine of those of the Greek Slavonic tradition. "The alliance of Rus' and Poland, based on mutual freedom, is necessary for the future of Slavdom. . . . It would help the Poles' reintegration into the Slavic movement, and it would allow the Ruthenians to raise the Greek Catholic Church, and to develop their nationality and language" (81-2). The alliance between Rus' and Poland was to become the cornerstone of the projected Pan-Slavic federation. "On their linking depends the harmonization of the whole [Slavic] race" (90).
In regard to his own nation, Terlecki believed that it was endowed with a great and glorious mission. Speaking of Ukrainian history, he stated:
The location of Rus' near the centre of the Slavic world, a dialect most "closely approximating the maternal language and, therefore, to this day the most comprehensible to all other Slavs,58 the elevation of Kiev to a supreme spiritual position which made of it among the Slavs of the Eastern rite almost the equivalent of Rome in the entire Church of God,59 continuous neighbourly relations with Poland and Hungary (two Catholic countries of the Latin Rite) -- all this seemed marvelously to favour the development of Rus' in the direction of this idea:... to keep all Slavic tribes in Catholic unity. (53)Rus' has been unable to accomplish this task in the past, but she will do it in the future. "Rus', which is already Catholic in part, is predestined to bring back to Catholic unity all the Slavs of the Slavonic rite and to preside over their spiritual development" (91).Terlecki's Place in the Evolution of Ukrainian Political Thought
The only Ukrainian scholar to have discussed Terlecki's ideas was Ivan Franko, as long ago as 1906. (Neither Ivan Krevetsky nor Elie Borschak, who have written on Terlecki's life, has paid attention to his political program.) Franko's opinion of the Address of a Ruthenian is worth quoting: "This was the most brilliant and -- in spite of many factual mistakes and an erroneous a priori tendency -- the most broadly conceived publicists production of the Ukrainian mind during the entire 1850s, a work informed by a great talent and inspired by an ardent and, if we may say so, unfeigned enthusiasm for and love of Ukraine." Franko goes on to say that Terlecki's essay contains ideas which "we rediscover thirty years later, in a different stylization and bolstered by other arguments, in the best writings of Drahomanov, such as Po voprosu o malorusskoi literature (Concerning the Question of Little Russian Literature, 1876) and Istoricheskaia Polsha i velikorusskaia demokratiia (Historical Poland and Great Russian Democracy, 1882)."60
This praise is the more noteworthy as Franko, the sober and critical scholar, felt no sympathy for Terlecki's visionary flights. Franko's article contains a number of ironical comments on Terlecki's wishful thinking and deviations from strict historical truth. The parallel which Franko draws between Terlecki and Drahomanov may at first appear surprising. Although only one generation apart chronologically, the two men belonged intellectually to different worlds. Terlecki was a son of the Romantic age, Drahomanov of Positivism. Franko was certainly not unaware of the gulf which separated the priest from the freethinker and advocate of radical secularism. Still, he was not mistaken in stressing the link between them. The common element consisted in democratic federalism. Democratic-populist and federalist notions were a recurrent theme in Ukrainian ideologies, from the Society of United Slavs in the 1820s to Drahomanov and later to Mykhailo Hrushevsky and the 1917 Revolution. Thus Ivan Franko testifies to the fact that Terlecki's program must be considered as belonging to the mainstream of nineteenth-century Ukrainian political thought.
There is another parallel, much closer both in time and in substance, which Franko failed to draw. I am referring to the obvious similarity of Terlecki's ideas to those of the Cyrillo-Methodian Society.61 This omission is probably to be explained by the circumstance that in Franko's day the papers of the Society were still hidden in tsarist police archives and, therefore, its program was not completely available to scholars. The main document that expresses the ideology of the Society, Kostomarov's Knyhy bytiia ukrainskoho narodu (The Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People), was published only in 1918. The Polish historian Marceli Handelsman, writing in the 1930s, was the first to assert that the ideas of Terlecki were "strangely similar, almost identical" with the statutes of the Cyrillo-Methodian Society.62
A student of the history of Ukrainian political thought has identified the four main planks of the Cyrillo-Methodians' program as social Christianity, egalitarian democracy, Ukrainian messianism, and Slavic federalism.63 All these components are also to be found, with some modifications in emphasis, in Terlecki. Despite his sincere concern for the welfare of the common man and his execration of serfdom, Terlecki's preoccupation with the peasant problem was not as central as in the case of the Cyrillo-Methodians; he was less of a narodnik (populist). In addition, as Handelsman has rightly seen, there are two points in which the ideas of the Address markedly diverge from those contained in the Knyhy bytiia.64 Both programs had a strong religious colouring, but of dissimilar hues. While Terlecki in 1849 was a militant Catholic and believed in the historical mission of the Uniate church, the ardent Christian faith of the Cyrillo-Methodians was non-ecclesiastical and of a distinctly nonconformist character, near to the spirit of radical Protestantism.65 Secondly, Terlecki's concept of a Ukrainian-Polish alliance as an axis of the future Slavic federation was alien to the Cyrillo-Methodians and would hardly have met with their approval. As most members of the Society were natives of Left-Bank Ukraine, their political thinking took place in a Russo-Ukrainian rather than in a Polish-Ukrainian context.
Still, the extraordinary similarity of the two programs has to be accounted for. Are we to assume an impact of the Cyrillo-Methodians' ideas on Terlecki? As we have seen, Terlecki knew in 1849, although inaccurately, about the arrest and trial of Shevchenko, Kulish, and their associates, which had occurred two years earlier. (It should be noted that he speaks of them as a group of individuals rather than as members of an organization.) But what did he know about the ideology of the "Ruthenian" intellectuals in Kiev? He referred to them briefly in connection with his discussion of the Pan-Slavist trend in Russia. In this respect, his information was correct. But the Society's thought contained elements other than Pan-Slavism, such as Ukrainian nationalism, which would have been of interest to Terlecki, and which he failed to mention. Neither did he mention the names of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, used by the Kiev circle. As Terlecki was himself devoted to the cult of the Apostles of the Slavs, to whom he later dedicated his church in Paris, his silence might be considered a sign of ignorance. He certainly had no access to the Society's programmatic papers, which were only circulated in a few handwritten copies among members, and were later impounded by the authorities. Terlecki's source, Duchinski, reported contemporary Kievan rumors, but he was unable to provide detailed and reliable information. Thus we reach the conclusion that Terlecki could not have been influenced by the ideas of the Cyrillo-Methodians to any significant degree. At most, information about the Ukrainian group in Kiev could have confirmed him in his own convictions, arrived at independently.
The parallels between the Address of a Ruthenian and the program of the Cyrillo-Methodian Society must therefore be explained by their being rooted in the common spirit of the age. Ideas of an eschatological, religious, democratic-populist, nationalist, and Pan-Slavic federalist character were "in the air" of all East European countries around the middle of the nineteenth century. When the first modern Ukrainian political programs were formulated about that time, they were bound to incorporate these intellectual elements and to synthesize them in accordance with the requirements of the specific Ukrainian situation. The broad correspondence between the Cyrillo-Methodians' and Terlecki's formulations ought to be taken as an indication that some such program indeed represented an adequate response to the challenge of the age. In addition, both Terlecki and the Society were influenced by the writings of the Polish Romanticists, which served them as a model. As a biographer of Kostomarov stated, "There can be no doubt that Kostomarov, Hulak, Shevchenko, Bilozersky, Savych, and other members of the [Cyrillo-Methodian] group experienced the strong impact of Polish political thought, Polish underground organizations, and the writings of Polish poets and publicists."66 Terlecki drew his inspiration from the same source, and this fact may account for the correspondence between his ideas and those of the Cyrillo-Methodians. It was no mean accomplishment of Terlecki to effect single-handedly and unaided an ideological synthesis which bears comparison with the one which emerged from the collective discussions of the brilliant group of Ukrainian intellectuals in Kiev.
The historical fortunes of the two programs, however, were altogether dissimilar. The Cyrillo-Methodian Society existed only for a short time before its suppression by the Russian government, and its original papers disappeared from sight until the downfall of the tsarist regime. Nevertheless, "the ideas of the Society became the watchword of all Ukrainian 'awakeners.'"67 It can be stated without exaggeration that the Cyrillo-Methodian program, with successive revisions and amendments, served as the ideological cornerstone of the Ukrainian national movement in Russia during the entire second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, down to the 1917 Revolution. This happened primarily through the powerful impact of Shevchenko's poetry, and also by the personal influence of several former members of the Society, such as Mykola Kostomarov, Panteleimon Kulish, and Vasyl Bilozersky, who, after their return from exile, became the protagonists of the Ukrainian movement in the 1860s and were able to transmit their leading ideas to the next generation.
Such a constructive historical role was denied Terlecki. It might have been expected that his 1849 program, owing to its strong Uniate bias, would have had a particular appeal to Greek Catholic Ukrainians in Galicia. Franko attests that th e Address of a Ruthenian was "widely circulated in Galicia and diligently read by the older generations of our intelligentsia."68 But he adds that in his own time Terlecki's study and his very person have been virtually forgotten. These words still apply today. As a matter of fact, some of the ideas formulated forcefully and eloquently in the Address of a Ruthenian were to re-emerge at a later date, proving the vitality of Terlecki's thinking. For instance, the notion that Ukraine was a Slavic nation completely distinct from Poland and Russia, and the claim that Ukraine, not Russia, was the legitimate heir of medieval Kievan Rus', are basic to the ideology of modern Ukrainian nationalism. The conviction of the historical mission of the Uniate Church has taken a strong hold among Ukrainian Catholics of the Eastern rite, although this belief is, of course, rejected by Ukrainians of other denominations. In recent years the Ukrainian diaspora in Western countries has been agitated by the call for a Ukrainian Catholic patriarchate. But all these revivals of ideas originally advanced by Terlecki occurred without any knowledge of his person and work. Hipolit Vladimir Terlecki remains the forgotten man of modern Ukrainian intellectual history.
How can this peculiar state of affairs be explained? In contrast to the Cyrillo-Methodians' program, which was backed by a group, the program of the Address of a Ruthenian was the work of a maverick individual. Terlecki never lacked personal friends, but he had no disciples. By his changes of religious and political colours and his return to Russia in 1872, he, in Franko's words, "gave the lie to his former ideas, expressed in the 1849 brochure."69 The Ukrainian community retaliated against this apparent act of treachery by expunging Terlecki from its collective memory and casting him into oblivion.
Notes 1. "Hipolit Terlecki" is Polish, and "Vladimir" Russian. I use these forms, which are to be found in contemporary documents. The Ukrainian form of the name is Ippolit Volodymyr Terletsky.
2. Terlecki consistently adhered to the traditional national nomenclature, Rus', rusyn (Ruthenia, Ruthenian), which he strictly differentiated from Russia, Russian.
3. The account of Terlecki's life is based mainly on the following sources: (1) His own reminiscences, "Zapiski arkhimandrita Vladimira Terletskogo, byvshego greko-uniatskogo missionera," Russkaia Starina 63 (1889): 1-26, 559-78; 70 (1891):581-601; 71 (1891 ):351-91. (2) A group of documents from the Vatican archives in A. G. Welykyj, ed., Litterae S. C. de Propaganda Fide Ecclesiam Catholicam Ucrainae et Bielarussiae spectantes (Rome 1957), v. 7. The documents refer mostly to Terlecki's second Paris period, in the early 1850s. (3) An article of I. Krevetsky, "Vid apostolstva do zrady," Nova Zoria 4 (1929), no. 45, 3-6. (4 and 5) Two articles of I. Borshchak (E. Borschak): "Ukrainska katolytska tserkva v Paryzhi sto rokiv tomu," Vistnyk Ukrainskoi Hreko-Katolytskoi Tserkvy u Frantsii (1945), nos. 1 and 3-4 (this article was available to me in a typewritten copy); "Une Eglise Catholique Ukrainienne a Paris il y a un siecle," Analecta Ordinis S. Basilii Magni 1 (8), Series 2, Section 2 (Rome 1950), fasc. 2-3:360-63. The two articles of Borshchak, which have the same title, do not coincide fully as to their contents, and each contains some bits of information not duplicated in the other.
4. Borshchak erroneously states that Terlecki was a Uniate by birth. This is contradicted by Terlecki's own "Reminiscences."
5. "Zapiski arkhimandrita Vladimira Terletskogo," Russkaia Starina 63 (1889):23.
6. Ibid., 565.
7. Ibid.
8. Princess Volkonsky was a hostess to Nikolai Gogol during his stay in Rome. I was not able to find evidence of any direct contact between Terlecki and Gogol, although it does not seem impossible chronologically.
9. On the encyclical, In supremi Petri apostoli sede, and its repercussions, see A. M. Ammann, Abriss der ostslavischen Kirchengeschichte (Vienna 1950), 516; E. Winter, Russland und das Papstum (Berlin 1960-61), 2:270.
10. "Zapiski arkhimandrita Vladimira Terletskogo," Russkaia Starina 70 (1891):589. It is to be noted that a few years later, in 1856, the Metropolitan of Halych, Mykhailo Levytsky, was appointed cardinal. This was the first instance of the elevation of a Ukrainian bishop to the College of Cardinals. This action of Pius IX may be viewed as a partial fulfillment of his promise to Terlecki. As to the second, more important measure, the creation of a Ukrainian Catholic patriarchate, it remains unfulfilled to this day.
11. "Greek Catholics" was the term used for Eastern-rite Catholics, or Uniates, of the Habsburg Empire.
12. Here ends the part of Terlecki's "Reminiscences" which was accessible to me. I was unable to consult the concluding section, Russkaia Starina 71 (1891):351-91.
13. Siowo Rusina ku wszej braci szczepu siowianskiego o rzeczach siowianskich (Paris 1849).
14. Quoted in Borschak, "Une Eglise Ukrainienne," 362. One wonders about the composition of the congregation to which Terlecki preached his Ukrainian sermons in Paris. The services at the Church of Sts. Cyril and Methodius might have been attended by some Polish emigres, natives of Ukraine. They were, however, Roman Catholics of the Latin rite, not Uniates.
15. Several of the documents in Welykyj, Litterae S. C. de Propaganda Fide, v. 7, nos. 3356, 3360, 3368, 3375, 3376, 3377, deal with questions pertaining to the ordination of Terlecki's pupils, Iuliian Kuilovsky and Teofil Korostensky.
16. On Metropolitan Kuilovsky's biography, see I. I. Nazarko, Kyivski i halytski mytropolyty: Biohrafichni narysy (1590-1960) (Rome 1962), 214-20.
17. M. Handelsman, Ukrainska politvka ks. Adama Czartoryskiego przed wojrni krymski (Warsaw 1937), 124-6.
18. According to Terlecki's memoirs, during his stay in Constantinople in 1847 he received a letter from Prince Czartoryski in which, in guarded terms, a deal was proposed: the Prince promised to support Terlecki's unionist action on condition that the latter accept Czartoryski's political leadership. "This condition was, of course, unacceptable to me." Russkaia Starina 63 (1889):576.
19. Handelsman mentions the "malicious remarks" published about Terlecki c. 1850 by the prominent Polish journalist Julian Klaczko. Ukrainska polityka, 120, n. 3.
20. See the letter of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (30 November 1853) to Archbishop Sacconi, the nuncio in Paris. Welykyj, Litterae S. C. de Propaganda Fide, v. 7, no. 3374:265-6.
21. The sources available to me do not tell whether Hipolit Terlecki and his son were ever reunited after 1836, and where the son's death occurred.
22. Welykyj, Litterae S. C. de Propaganda Fide, v. 7, no. 3390 (24 March 1855):274-5.
23. Zoria Halytska, 1851, nos. 20, 21. The article was a report on the Oriental Society and its work. The correspondence is discussed in I. Franko, "Stara Rus'," Litera-turnonaukovyi vistnyk 36 (1906): 368-70.
24. K. Studynsky, ed., Korespondentsiia lakova Holovatskoho v litakh 1850-62 (Lviv 1905), 273-6.
25. Ibid., 351.
26. Terlecki's letter of 29 January 1859, ibid., 427-8.
27. K.N. Ustiianovych, M. F. Raievskii i rossiiskii panslavizm: Spomyny z perezhytoho i peredumanoho (Lviv 1884), 78.
28. The appearance of Terlecki is described in the unpublished memoirs of Platon Kostetsky, quoted in Franko, "Stara Rus'," 374.
29. Two variants of the poem, written in 1860, are reprinted in O. V. Dukhnovych, Tvory (Bratislava 1968), 1:335-7.
30. J. Pelesz, Geschichte der Union der ruthenischen Kirche mit Rom (Wiirzburg and Vienna 1881), 2:937, n.
31. Welykyj, Litterae S. C. de Propaganda Fide, v. 7, no. 3473 (2 January 1862), 317-18; no. 3483 (13 May 1862), 324.
32. The account of the last period of Terlecki's life is based exclusively on Krevetsky's article (see note 3), as other available biographical sources provide no information.
33. It seems quite possible that the denunciation against Terlecki and his arrest were a frame-up arranged to supply the authorities with a pretext for the expulsion of an inconvenient man. We do not know Terlecki's legal status during his stay in Transcar-pathia and Galicia, but he had probably never acquired Austro-Hungarian citizenship, for otherwise he could not have been ordered out of the country.
34. See note 3.
35. See note 13.
36. See above, note 3. The "Reminiscences" were prepared for publication by Terlecki's friend Lev Lopatynsky. Under the pseudonym "L. I. Halychanyn," Lopatynsky wrote an article after Terlecki's death dedicated to his memory, "Staromu druhu," Slovo, 1889, no. 5. This article, inaccessible to me, could be valuable from the biographical viewpoint.
37. Handelsman, Ukrainska polityka, 120, n. 3.
38. Podrazhaniia Isusa Khrysta, knyzhok chotyry. Sochinenie Tomy z Kempisa (Przemysl 1862), v. 14.
39. Dumy ta dumky Iosypa Bohdana Zaleskoho, perevedeni z polskoho na rodymyi ruskyi iazyk (Przemysl 1861).
40. Otcherk prazdnychnykh propovidei (Przemysl 1862).
41. Zapysky vtoroho poklonycheskoho puteshestviia z Ryma v Ierusalym i inshykh mis-tsiakh Vostoka sovershennoho (Lviv 1861), 2 fasc.
42. I. E. Levytsky, Halytsko-ruskaia bybliohrafiia XIX stolitiia, 2 vols. (Lviv 1888-95), 2:12. This work is also the source of information on the items listed in notes 38-41.
43. Studynsky, Korespondentsiia lakova Holovatskoho, 274, n. 1.
44. They are listed in Levytsky, Halytsko-ruskaia bybliohrafiia, v. 2.
45. Ugorskaia Rus' i vozrozhdenie soznaniia narodnosti mezhdu russkimi v Vengrii (Kiev 1874).
46. Such a Congregatio pro ecclesia orientali was actually created in 1917, under the pontificate of Benedict XV.
47. Terlecki shared this opinion with his old comrade-in-arms, Michal Czajkowski. The latter's biographer states: "According to Czajkowski's historical theories, the cause of Poland's fall was separation from the common Slavic interest and Slavdom in general. Because of this, she was dragged along, if I may say so, tied to the tail of West European politics, and became a plaything in the hands of the Germans and other European powers. To correct this age-old error, it was necessary to draw close to the Slavs." Fr. Rawita-Gawroriski, Michal Czaykowski (Sadyk-Pasza). Jego iycie, dziatalnosc wojskowa i literacka, 2d ed. (St. Petersburg 1901), 36.
48. Terlecki's concept of Russian history resembles strikingly the argument of Astolphe de Custine's La Russie en 1839 (1843). Terlecki does not cite de Custine, but I am convinced that he drew on his famous and much-discussed work.
49. Cf. F.-H. Duchinski (de Kiew), Peuples Aryas et Tourans, Agriculteurs et Nomades. Necessite des reformes dans 1'exposition de I'histoire des peuples Aryas-Europeens et Tourans, particulierement des Slaves et des Moscovites (Paris 1864).
50. It is noteworthy that when in 1907 the Metropolitan of Halych, Andrei Sheptytsky, embarked on his bold unionist action in Russia, he also intended to base it partly on the Old Believers. Cf. C. Korolevskij, Metropolite Andre Szeptyckyj, 1865-1944, Opera Theologicae Societatis Scientificae Ucrainorum (Rome 1964), 16 -- 17:192 ff.
51. The context suggests that the reference to "many Catholics" who, according to Terlecki, harboured wishful thoughts about the prospects of a conversion of Russia was a covert polemic against the views which he encountered in certain circles of the Roman Curia.
52. The "transaction" alluded to by Terlecki was the concordat between the Holy See and Russia of 3 August 1847 signed by the Cardinal Secretary of State, Luigi Lambruschini, and Count Dmitrii Bliudov. The concordat was an attempt to regularize the position of the Latin-rite Catholic church in the Russian Empire, but it bypassed the problem of the Uniates. The Union had been officially suppressed by Nicholas I in 1839, except for the Chelm (Kholm) diocese in Congress Poland. In Terlecki's interpretation, the concordat of 1847 implied Rome's tacit acceptance of this act.
53. This is the only instance in the Address of the use of the term Ukraine. The context shows that Terlecki understood it in the traditional sense, as the name of the Cossack territory on the Dnieper.
54. It can safely be assumed that Terlecki's knowledge of the fate of Shevchenko and the other members of the Cyrillo-Methodian Society was derived from Duchinski. The latter, prior to his escape to the West in 1846, resided in Kiev, where he obtained some second-hand information about the existence of a clandestine Ukrainian group. Between January and March 1848 Duchinski published in Prince Czartoryski's Paris organ, Trzeci Maj, a series of articles on the Ukrainian problem, entitled "The Pereiaslav Agreement." He advocated Polish-Ukrainian co-operation, discussed the oppression of Ukraine by the tsarist government, and mentioned the trial of Shevchenko, Kulish (whose name he misspelled "Kulesza"), and of several of their associates (whose names he badly confused). (Excerpts of the Trzeci Maj articles are reprinted in Pisma Franciszka Duchinskiego, 3 vols. [Rapperswil 1901-4] 2:313-25. See also Handelsman, Ukrainska polityka, 2:110-15.) Contrary to Duchiriski's erroneous statement, repeated by Terlecki, none of the Cyrillo-Methodians had been condemned to forced labour in the mines.
55. The notion that Slavic peoples are particularly prone to democracy was widespread during the Romantic age. Terlecki most likely obtained it from the writings of the influential Polish emigre historian and publicist, Joachim Lelewel (1786-1861), who postulated gminowiadztwo (people's rule) as the socio-political system of the primeval Slavs.
56. "Bards" (wieszcze) was an honorific name given to Poland's Romantic poets, primarily Mickiewicz, with whom Terlecki was personally acquainted.
57. This point of Terlecki's program is strangely reminiscent of a passage in the "Rules," or "Catechism," of the Society of United Slavs (1823-5): "... (15) You are a Slav, and in your country, on the shores of the four seas which surround it, you shall construct four fleets: Black, White, Dalmatian, and Arctic.. . . (16) In your ports, o Slav, commerce and naval power will flourish, and justice will reside in the city at the centre of your country." (Izbrannye sotsialno-politicheskie i fllosofskie proizvedeniia dekabristov, 3 vols. [Moscow 1951], 3:71-2.) Is this puzzling parallelism a mere coincidence? Or do we have the right to speculate that some information about the United Slavs slipped through to Terlecki? He was a native of Volhynia, where the Society had originated; some of its members belonged to the local Polish-Ukrainian gentry. The United Slavs were the branch of the Decembrist movement which, despite its lack of a developed Ukrainian national consciousness, must be considered as belonging to the tradition of Ukrainian political thought. The United Slavs' democratic and federalistic Pan-Slavism found a continuation in the program of the Cyrillo-Methodian Society, on the one hand, and in that of Terlecki on the other.
58. In calling individual Slavic languages "dialects" (narzecza), Terlecki followed a usage common to many nineteenth-century Pan-Slavists. By the "maternal language" he meant Church Slavonic. The erroneous notion that among the Slavic languages Ukrainian is particularly close to Church Slavonic might have been suggested to Terlecki by the circumstance that a Ukrainized version of Church Slavonic, the so-called Slavonic Ruthenian (slaveno-ruskyi iazyk), served as the literary language of Ukraine until the eighteenth century.
59. Terlecki's idea of the exalted position and spiritual primacy of Kiev derives from the tradition of Ukrainian seventeenth-century thought. The myth of "Kiev, the second Jerusalem" was widespread in Ukraine during the Cossack era. (Cf. Oleksander Ohloblyn, Hetman Mazepa ta ioho doba [New York, Paris, Toronto 1960], 145-7.) This idea is also to be found among some of Terlecki's contemporaries. Mykola Kostomarov, the leader and ideologist of the Cyrillo-Methodian Society, in an unfinished novel, Panych Natalych, puts in the mouth of one of the protagonists the prophecy that "the reconciled Slavs will some day unite in Kiev, 'the capital of the Slavic race,' and the bell of St. Sophia [cathedral in Kiev] will announce the deliverance of the Slavic peoples." (G. Luciani, Le Livre de la Genese du peuple ukrainien [Paris 1950], 46.) And Terlecki's acquaintance and comrade-in-arms during the 1831 insurrection, the Ukrainophile Pole MichaJ Czajkowski, said in his Powiesci kozackie (1837): "Kiev is the true cradle of the Slavic race... .1 have often talked with Slavs of different countries and all agreed that Kiev is an arch-Slavic city." (Luciani, Le Livre de la Genese, 47.)
60. I. Franko, "Stara Rus'," Literaturno-naukovyi vistnyk 36, no. 12 (1906):309. This article is not included in the Soviet edition of Franko's collected works, Tvory, 20 vols. (Kiev 1950-56).
61. Recent works on the Cyrillo-Methodian Society are: B. Yanivsky, ed., Kostomarov's "Books of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People" (New York 1954); P. A. Zaionchkovskii, Kirillo-Mefodievskoe obshchestvo (Moscow 1959); Luciani, Le Livre de la Genese; D. Papazian, "N. I. Kostomarov and the Cyril-Methodian Ideology," Russian Review 29, no. 1 (January 1970); D. Papazian, "The Trial of the Cyril-Methodians," The Michigan Academician 3, no. 4 (Spring 1971). See also the relevant chapters in the books of H. Ia. Serhiienko, Suspilno-politychnyi rukh na Ukrainipisliapovstannia dekabrystiv 1826-1850 (Kiev 1971) and G. S. N. Luckyj, Between Gogol' and Sevcenko. Polarity in the Literary Ukraine: 1798 -1847 (Munich 1971).
62. Handelsman, Ukrainska polityka, 121.
63. Resume of lecture by Ie. Pyziur, Harvard Ukrainian Studies Newsletter 4, nos. 3, 4 (November-December 1972), 15.
64. Handelsman, Ukrainska polityka, 121.
65. The religious philosophy of the Cyrillo-Methodians has been discussed by M. Hrushevsky, Z istorii religiinoi dumky na Ukraini (Lviv 1925), 111-24; D. Chyzhevsky, Narysy z istorii filosofii na Ukraini (Prague 1931), 107-34.
66. D. Doroshenko, Mykola Ivanovych Kostomarov (Leipzig n.d.), 24. The ideological connections between the Cyrillo-Methodians, especially Shevchenko, and their Polish contemporaries have been investigated by V. Shchurat, "Osnovy Shevchenkovykh zviazkiv z poliakamy" in V.H. Shchurat, Vybrani pratsi z istorii literatury (Kiev 1963), 242-350. This problem has also been treated, briefly but adequately, by Luciani, Le Livre de la Genese, 33-6.
67. I. Borshchak, Introduction to his edition of M. Kostomarov, Knyhy bytiia ukrain-skoho narodu (Paris n.d.), 35.
68. Franko, "Stara Rus"," 359-60.
69. Ibid., 374.