SUMMARY:

The article by Ernest Gyidel is conceived as the introduction to the commentated publication of the archival documents by George Vernadsky pertaining to his Ukrainian identity vis-а-vis Russian culture and the tradition of Russian imperial statehood.
Gyidel revisits the discussion between R. Vulpius, D. Stalunas, and M. Dolbilov (Ab Imperio 1/2006) about the historical meaning of the term “rusofile,” and suggests possible genealogies of such terms as “rusofile,” “ukrainofile,” “maloross,” and “Ukrainian.” It is against this background that Gyidel introduces the concept of “Ukrainians of the Russian culture” as a very late imperial phenomenon, and presents George Vernadsky as representative of this category. A complicated dialectic of recognition of Ukrainian people-hood and Ukrainian language – yet under the Russian political and (high) cultural umbrella is explicated by Gyidel with the help of a few previously unpublished texts from Vernadsky’s collection in Columbia University’s (New York) Bakhmeteff Archive. There are two articles (“A Short Exposition of the Eurasian Point of View on Russian History” and “Prince Trubetskoi and the Ukrainian Question”), one lecture (“The Kievan and Kozak Period in Ukrainian History”) and two letters (to L. Myshuga and P. Ignat’ev). As a way to provide context for their discussion, Gyidel examines Vernadsky’s published works where different aspects of Ukrainian history are analyzed, including his contacts with Ukrainian emigration. He suggests that if approached within such a context, Vernadsky’s collection can be an invaluable source to study his complex political and cultural loyalties. The main question that he addresses is not Vernadsky’s understanding of “Ukrainianness.” Instead the question is: what meaning he and his fellow “Russian Ukrainians” invested in the category “Russian”? What kind of loyalty – cultural, political, imperial or their combination – did they attach to this subjective “Russianness”?