Emigre Historian Research Articles

Six by five: Soviet and emigrant historians at the 7th International congress of historical sciences

The focus of the authors’ attention is the dialogue between emigrant historians and their Soviet colleagues during the International historical congress that was held in Warsaw in August 1933. It was the first congress that took place in a Slavic country. The main sources of research are the reports and accounts of the participants of the congress, presented in the form of publications in Soviet scientific magazines («Historian Marxist», «Class Struggle»), in emigrant periodicals («Russia and Svadom») and in European reviews («Revue historigue de droit francais et etranger»). The authors also use paperwork documents from the Foundation of the Institute of History of the Comacademy. The Soviet delegation consisted of six members, while there were five emigrant scientists, who were at the same time members of national delegations of other countries where they were living. The common interest of both sides, which appeared behind the congress venues, was recorded, the features of self-descriptions and presentations and self-presentation to the world scientific community were revealed. The constructed corporate portraits of each other were demonstrated. The conclusion was made that there was not a constructive dialogue between different sides. At the same time it was noted that there was not a provocative dialogue either, like one that occurred during the congress at Oslo. The reasons for this stagnation were identified. The authors of this article characterize prevailing atmosphere at the congress (let’s not quarrel) as «communicative plateau», that was connected with the increasingly complicated international situation of the early thirties.

Scholarly and Educational Activities of Professor Perfecky in Slovakia

The presented study synthesizes both established as well as most recent knowledge on the life and work of Professor Eugen Yulianovich Perfecky, who worked in Slovakia from 1922 until his death in 1947. He was, among other things, a graduate of the University of St Petersburg and an outstanding student of Professor A. A. Shakhmatov. The first group of Russian scholars came to Czechoslovakia in 1921, and in the same year, at the suggestion and recommendation of Prof. Vatroslav Jagič and Lubomír Niederle, he received an invitation to the newly established Comenius University in Bratislava. Within E. Perfecky’s scholarly work, the two most important areas of research were: the history of Subcarpathian Rus’ and analytical and comparative research of medieval chronicles. E. Perfecky was a supporter of the Ukrainian orientation of the national culture of Subcarpathian Russia. The outcomes of his research, particularly in the comparative studies of Russian chronicles with German, Polish, Hungarian, and Czech chronicles, significantly advanced the respective expertise, thus making him a worthy successor to the Russian textological research of early Russian chronicles pioneered by A. A. Shakhmatov. E. Perfecky maintanted a great scholarly network and worked closely with C. Slavists, such as J. Bidlo, L. Niederle, K. Jirechek, M. Weingart, J. Macurek. He cooperated with Professor Jagiсh in Vienna, with the Norwegian Slavist O. Brok, and other leading Slavists in Poland and Germany. E. Perfecky also collaborated with a number of Russian and Ukrainian emigrant historians. In Slovakia, E. Perfecky laid a solid foundation for further historical research of Russian chronicles as well as for studies of the history of Eastern Europe.

Cеминариум имени Н. П. Кондакова – европейский крымоведческий центр (20-е годы XX столетия)

An art historian and an expert in architectural objects restoration N. P. Kondakov emigrated to Czechoslovakia where a circle of emigrant historians shaped around him. This scholarly society developing from the Byzantologist N. P. Kondakov’s home circle in Prague was titled in Byzantine way, Seminarium Kondakovianum. After his death in February 1925, this small-in-number academic community with support from the Czechoslovak government developed into a foreign school of Byzantologists and Russian historians. Thus, there appeared a Russian institution with international statute in Prague. The study of intertwined western and eastern influences in Russian history became a typical motif of Russian scholarly thought in emigration. In this connection, the Crimea became an interesting object for the researches and historical generalizations by the Seminaium members. The paper introduces into the scholarship the materials from the archive of the Seminarium Kondakovianum (Kondakov Institute) now residing in the Archives of the Czech Academy of Sciences. The analysis attracts the documents from N. P. Kondakov’s personal collection at the Literary Archives of Written National Monuments of the Slavonic Library in Prague. There are interesting unpublished manuscripts by the Seminarium members discovered by the author. There were three circles of Crimean researchers determined at the Seminarium’s works: historians living in Prague who studied the mediaeval history of the Crimea and the history of research (N. M. Beliaev, G. V. Vernadsky, A. P. Kalitinskii, D. А. Rasovskii, N. P. Toll’); a group of historians from the USSR attracted by G. V. Vernadsky to send their papers for discussion (D. V. Ainalov, S. А. Zhebelev, N. V. Izmailova, A. I. Markevich, and others); Russian emigrant historians living in other countries (M. I. Rostovtsev, alter on G. V. Vernadsky). G. V. Vernadsky was the chief organizer and the academic curator of the Seminarium. G. V. Vernadsky’s skillful practice on attraction to the Seminarium of leading Soviet experts in the Crimean studies allowed the annual to publish their works thus enlarging the sphere of the historians’ scholarly communications. The contacts (correspondence) with the Taurida Society for History, Archaeology, and Ethnography (Simferopol) and the State Museum of Chersonese (Sevastopol) were established. Hysteria made by the Soviet secret service and Communist party leaders around the “case of S. A. Zhebelev,” directly connected with the cooperation of Soviet and emigrant historians, resulted in the cease of the said contacts and book exchange. In 1931, the Seminarium was reshaped into N. P. Kondakov Institute with the change of the participants and the disappearance of the Crimea aspect from the agenda for sessions.

Soviet and Emigrant Historians in the Eyes of P. N. Milyukov (1920s-1940s): Corporate Memory Features

The article presents the assessment of P. N. Milyukov for Russian historical science of the 20th century through the biographies of its iconic representatives A. A. Kizevetter, S. F. Platonov and M. N. Pokrovsky. The source base was made up of articles and obituaries written by Milyukov and dedicated to the deceased scholars. The specifics of the historiographic Milyukov’ discourse consists of 1) the structural features of the narrative, which includes, the author’s own biography along with the biography of historians; 2) in the criteria for assessing the scientific contribution and prospects for the development of historical scholarship from the point of view of fitting into Moscow or St. Petersburg historical schools. In conclusion of the article the authors named features of the corporate memory of emigrant scientist.

Emigrant Historians. George Vernadsky and Michael Karpovich: Friends and Colleagues

The article is devoted to two historians of the Russian Diaspora in the USA: George Vernadsky and Michael Karpovich, their personal friendship and scientific cooperation. Future colleagues get to know each other as students at Moscow University and carried their friendship through the life. Also, until the death of Karpovich, their correspondence continued. The scientific cooperation of friends began in 1914 and resumed during the years of emigration. The article discusses joint projects of historians, analyzes their correspondence on the most important topics. The author of the article relies on a wide range of both published and unpublished sources. A number of them stored in the GARF are being put into scientific circulation for the first time.

History and Culture of Ukraine on the Pages of Periodicals of the Ukrainian Historical and Philological Society in Prague (in 1939-1945s)

The purpose of the paper is to reveal the scientific-historical and publishing activity of the Ukrainian Historical and Philological Society in Prague (hereinafter – UHPS) during the World War II, research into the topics of scientific periodicals and assess the contribution of Ukrainian emigrant historians to the development of history and culture of Ukraine. The research methodology is based on a combination of general scientific methods (problematic-chronological, retrospective, logical analysis, classification and systematization, generalization, comparison) with the principles of objectivity, historicism. The scientific novelty of the paper is that the historical scientific heritage of the members of the Ukrainian Historical and Philological Society in Prague during the Second World War (1939-1945) has been studied and analyzed in detail for the first time in the domestic historical science. Conclusions. During World War II, UHPS members, despite the difficulties of the turbulent times, continued their research work for the benefit of Ukrainian historical science. New representatives of the society, emigrants from Soviet Ukraine, actively joined the work and continued the traditions of the society of previous years. According to our estimates, 24 scientific papers were published, 51 speeches were made at the meetings of the society. The analysis of archival documents, papers of the emigrant historians of the Second World War convinces that their publishing activity was a significant contribution to the development of historical science and Ukrainian culture. Scientific novelty, debatability, originality of interpretations are inherent in the research of the members of the society on the issues of the history of Kyivan Rus, different periods of the Cossacks, the history of Ukraine in the XVIII and XIX centuries, etc. The issue of studying Ukrainian culture, auxiliary disciplines and archiving is interesting and promising nowadays. A large number of historians - scientists, members of the UHPS, wrote their works on the basis of foreign archives, which made it possible to deepen and open new pages of Ukrainian history or refute false allegations about Ukrainianness, which were widespread in the Russian Empire and on the territory of Soviet Ukraine.

Роль Ніжинського козацького полку в українсько-російських протистояннях: історіографія питання

The article is devoted to the analysis of the study of the participation of the Nizhyn Cossack Regiment in the Ukrainian-Russian conflicts. The attention is paid to the state of the problem research. The stages of development in historiography of the participation of Nizhyn regiment in anti-Moscow speeches are analyzed. The works are reflected in which the mentioned problem has been reflected. It was clarified that the issues of the participation of the NizhynCossacks in anti-Moscow insurrections were not the subject of special investigations in the New Age. Mostly faced with fragmentary references about Nizhyn regiment. The subject of study of the military activity of the regiment and in the revolutionary historical literature, on the pages of which we find episodic information about the participation of the regiment in military clashes with Moscow, did not become a subject. It has been established that due to the 70 involvement of Soviet historiography, research, the problem we mentioned, this period was not carried out. A similar situation is typical of the historical works of the Ukrainian diaspora. Being free of the influence of the Soviet ideology, emigre historians, due to lack of information, were forced to restrict themselves to short references to the Nizhyn regiment in Ukrainian-Moscow confrontations. In particular, the emphasis was placed on the achievements in the study of this issue in contemporary Ukrainian historiography. With the proclamation of independence of Ukraine has published a number of works devoted to the problem of Ukrainian-Russian confrontation in the context of lighting which reflected the military activities of the Nizhyn regiment. In the course of the study, it was concluded that despite the increased interest in Nizhyn regiment, as military and administrative units of the Hetman, thorough papers that revealed, we have studied the subject, issued and was not.

«Я... никогда не смогу забыть то, что ты сделал для меня». Письма известного русского историка-эмигранта Николая Оттокара классику итальянской историографии Гаэтано Сальвемини

This article is a publication of letters of Nikolai Petrovich Ottokar (1884-1957), Russian emigre historian, specialist in the history of the Florentine Republic, professor at the University of Florence, to his colleague and opponent Gaetano Salvemini (1873-1957), established authority in Italian historiography, fervent antifascist, and emigrant as well. The author feels that the historiography implies that there was a certain strain between two historians that stemmed in Ottokar's harsh criticism of Salvemini’s concept of the history of late Duecento era Florence, which he proposed in 1899. Also Ottokar succeeded Salvemini at the Department of Contemporary History after Salvemini was expelled by the fascists from the University of Florence. The scholarship cites Ottokar’s manifest ‘loyalty’ to the fascist regime in Italy, including his likely party membership. It recalls his cooperation in a number of scientific projects of the fascist era, for instance, the Enciclopedia italiana. The author feels that the texts published below allow to correct this outlook and also to add several significant details to the research field. First, as follows from the texts below, the relationship between two historians was clearly not strained, but rather friendly. Secondly, the published letters add a number of interesting details to the biography of the Russian scientist. It should be noted that the Italian scientist played an important role in Ottokar’s life in 1924-1925. Apparently, Salvemini helped Ottokar to settle in Florence, where he emigrated from Perm in 1921. Apparently, Ottokar began his work at the University of Florence at the instigation of the Italian scientist. This, by the way, can testify, albeit indirectly, of a rather longer acquaintance of two scientists, which could have begun in the early 1910s, during N.P. Ottokar’s international trip. Letters are published from autographs stored in the fond of Gaetano Salvemini in the Istituto storico Toscana della Resistenza in Italian and in Russian translation by the author accomplished with permission of the Comitato Salvemini.

Неопубликованные страницы дневника Г. П. Федотова

The diary notes of the famous Russian emigre historian, religious thinker and publicist George Fedotov are published for the first time. They were preserved in copies made by Z.O. Mikulovskaya and Iu.P. Ivask and kept in the private archives of V.V. Jantzen and at the Center for Russian Culture of Amherst College (USA). Small in volume records quite fully represent the spiritual quest of their author during his trip to England in 1935 and the difficult, and full of dangers moving from France to the USA in 1940-1941. The text of the diary is brought into conformity with modern norms of spelling with preservation of some features of author's spelling of separate words and punctuation.

Talking about Russian Sex in the Era of Pussy Riot

There are important lessons to learn from Alexei Lalo’s engaging essay: lessons about public speech, about Russian sex, and about western studies of Russia. First things first, of course, and that means sex. But is sex the most important concern in Russia? Rest assured, other issues are at least equally important, such as power, money, violence, justice, freedom, religion, alcohol, natural resources, civil society, and finally, oppression. Sex, or rather sexuality, became central in American academia in the 1970s, under the influence of French intellectuals who were defeated in the revolution of 1968. After the defeat of Soviet socialism in the 1990s, talking about ‘sex’ — the Foucauldian discourse of sexuality — was relevant for a Russian society that enjoyed plenty of sex, but could not talk about it because of Soviet taboos. This society, and the relevance of certain ideas about it, has however changed dramatically since then. There is nothing surprising about this, and Lalo’s essay in its dissatisfaction goes well beyond sex. The essay critiques the misapplication of ideas that were good and fair in the 1980s to the society of the 2000s. The problem resembles thinking about Weimar Germany in the 1920s in decadent terms that were fashionable in the 1900s, or rather — a sad thought — like discussing Nazi Germany in Weimarian terms. I wonder what ‘Russian’ actually means in a construction like ‘Russian sex’? Is it ethnicity, or citizenship, or place of action? Does an American sex tourist in Russia, for example, have ‘American’ or ‘Russian’ sex? Or a Russian student in America? And how about Russian-American couples? Could it be that the unhappy ones talk about ‘Russian sex’, while the happy couples talk about other things? Although worrying about the ‘Russian soul’ is even more obsolete than discussing ‘Russian sex’, there are those who continue to do it. Do souls have ethnicity? And how about sex: do ethnic categories characterize the indigenous specificities of sexual actions and feelings? In modern cultures, thoughts and stereotypes about sex are to some extent local and to some extent imported, bartered, or plainly shared with other cultures. Yet, in the classroom and the publishing house, cliches and illusions about exotic sex may remain good stories to sell. Does this business constitute legitimate scholarship? These are broader questions that Lalo asks. But there is also a more specific theme in Lalo’s essay. American studies of Russia have always been enriched — or contaminated? — by the Russian natives who succeeded in finding American jobs. From the emigre historians, such as George Vernadsky at Yale and Michael Karpovich at Harvard, who confronted the Bolshevik

DISPLACED HISTORIANS, DIALECTICAL HISTORIES

For German‐Jewish refugees, the Holocaust and its aftermath produced extremely difficult questions of identity and memory. The considerable literature on German‐Jewish émigré historians has rarely addressed scholars’ efforts to confront such questions, and has particularly neglected the important role of second‐generation refugee historians. This article examines the connection between the experiences, memories and scholarship of two leading second‐generation emigrant historians: George L. Mosse and Peter Gay. As children, Mosse and Gay lived the Goethian Germany of Bildung, and then fled as the same Germany produced the Third Reich and the Holocaust. Each went on to write important work on the life and death of the modern German‐Jewish community. This article contends that Mosse and Gay thus shared a unique combination of intimacy and distance regarding German and German‐Jewish history. Such a combination and a correspondent status of insider‐outsider made Mosse’s and Gay’s lives and perspectives paradigmatic of the dialectical paths of Germany in the twentieth century.

The formation of periodization and the conception of Lithuanian history from 1940-1990 in emigrant historians' works

The beginning of the formation of new conceptions and the beginning of periodization of Lithuanian history was in 1987. Lithuanian emigrant historians were the main influences of this process. The first ideas of new periodization were formulated by the historian Z. Ivinskis. In his publications, and in the works of other historians, M. Budreckis, Th. Remeikis, R. Misiūnas, and S. Suziedelis, the periodization of Lithuanian history from 1940-1990 was created. The first period, 1940-1941, was named as the period of Soviet occupation (15 June 1940 and the annexation on 3 August 1940). The essence of this period is the Sovietization of Lithuania and the genocide of the Lithuanian people. The second period, 1941-1944, was named as the period of Nazi occupation. During these years, the Lithuanian emigrant historians emphasized anti-Nazi resistance in the Lithuanian nation. The third period, 1944-1953, was the time of the second Soviet occupation or reoccupation. Guerilla movements were the main feature of this period. From the years of postwar Stalinism to 1956, the period of re-emergence of national culture (R. Misiūnas) or of the maintenance of national identity began (Th. Remeikis). This period came to an end in 1968. The main feature of the next period was the passive anti-Soviet movement and the Lithuania Catholic Church's struggle for religious rights. The last period of modern Lithuanian history started in 1988, and it was named as the period of the Lithuanian Awakening.

The Europecentric Historiography of Russia: An Analysis of the Contribution By Russian Emigre Historians in the USA, 1925-1955, Concerning 19th Century Russian History. By Elizabeth Beyerly. Studies in European History, 11. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1973. 385 pp.

The Europecentric Historiography of Russia: An Analysis of the Contribution By Russian Emigre Historians in the USA, 1925-1955, Concerning 19th Century Russian History. By Elizabeth Beyerly. Studies in European History, 11. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1973. 385 pp.

Recent Conflicts in Soviet Historiography

T HE writing of history in our society is far from being a clearly defined process. The form it takes is dependent upon the writer's definition of the nature of history; and the number of differing definitions is roughly equal to the number of historians. However, historians in those countries which do not exert a formal censorship are, in general, agreed that their purpose is to discern and to present truth. The truth as presented depends upon two factors: (i) the which are discovered and (2) the frame of reference, conscious or unconscious, from which each historian works. It is not easy to accept the tenet of the scientific school that the mere presentation of the so-called facts will preserve the purity of the product from the attitudes and limitations of the individual historian, for the process of selecting reveals as much of the historian's philosophy as it does of the subject he treats. Nevertheless, the product of historians in a society which does not deliberately direct their efforts is rich in information and in thought, disparate and contradictory though it may be. In other societies, where an active leadership conceives its duty as either the preservation of existing values and forms or the attainment of definite ideals and configurations, the purpose of writing history is, from the official point of view, quite different. The historian on occasion may be left free to write history as he conceives it, if his conception is not in open conflict with the opinions and aims of the active rulers. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has in the past conducted, and is currently carrying on, a great campaign to create a society in the image of an ideal. It may be assumed that the role of the historian in the struggle is not ignored by the government of the U.S.S.R. But what is the part assigned to the historian? May he write as he pleases, provided that his product does not contradict the tenets of the faith; or must he enrol himself, willingly or otherwise, as an ideological soldier of society? What subjects are forbidden to him? What are the truths which he must present? What has been the nature of his work? The answers to these questions are difficult, often impossible, to find, for there is a paucity of sources. The comments and articles of men living in the U.S.S.R. today presumably represent the attitude of the Communist party and of the government-at least, the attitude in force at the date of publication. In large measure the articles available consist of criticisms of fellow-historians luckless enough to have given the appearance of deviation. Critical articles of this type indicate specific errors which chastised historians have presumably committed. But in the same breath the critics pour out a shower of name-callings, accompanied frequently by undefinable cliches, such as Trotskyites, alienMarxists, or bourgeois cosmopolitans. It is this terminology which often bewilders the reader and leaves him wondering as to the precise nature of the offense committed by the defendant. Such an atmosphere renders academic life and research work at times totally unbearable. In another respect the role of writers working within the U.S.S.R. is not clear. Are they applying principles in their savage blasts of criticism, or are many of their outbursts the exploitation of political avenues to professional advancement? Professional and political advancement in the U.S.S.R. are often synonymous. Another source, more satisfactory but even more confusing, consists of the studies by Russian emigre historians or by more remote students of Russian history. Taken individually, each of these studies is plausible; however, no two of them treat the subject within the same frame of reference. There is only one matter upon which all studies are in accord, and that is the absence of freedom for the scholar working within the U.S.S.R. The problem remains, however, to discover the line followed by the government and the party of the U.S.S.R. and to discover the extent to which historians are expected to conform. It