What do the image, history and spiritual world of Ukraine mean to Europeans? The Day has been and will always be raising this question, for mutual acquaintance and uninhibited interaction of Ukrainian and European cultures are an indispensable, albeit insufficient, condition for us to really get back to the European home. We offer our readers an interview with a well-known Italian Slavicist, Prof. Giovanna BROGI BERCOFF.
What prompted you to take interest in the history and culture of Ukraine and what do you think are the most important results of your years-long research?
“First of all, what made my ‘encounter’ with Ukraine possible were my research interests in linguistics and literature. My research on Kyivan Rus and then the Polish and Ukrainian baroque inevitably led me to the need to study Ukrainian literature. The decisive turning point occurred in 1988, when the most notable US diaspora scholars (above all, Omeljan Pritsak and Ihor Szewczenko), together with the well-known Italian Slavist Riccardo Picchio, organized an extremely interesting international congress devoted to the Baptism of Rus.
“During this congress I met some of the most prominent academic personalities who dealt with the history, culture, and literature of pre-modern Ukraine. A year later the Berlin Wall fell, then Ukraine proclaimed independence and the Soviet Union collapsed. In fact, it became an intellectual challenge to study Ukraine: understanding and trying to reconstruct the history of Ukrainian culture and literature seemed to me one of the most attractive undertakings, for this meant discovering a new world almost entirely hushed up until then in Slavic studies.
“In a way, this was a task that I would say brought about ethical satisfaction: it became possible to show a persecuted national culture in an authentic light and, at the same time, try to make sure that this culture does not lock itself in narrow-minded provincialism and parochialism, which could place it outside the great intellectual and civic trends of European culture. The question was, on the one hand, to reappraise and define Ukrainian literature as a self-sufficient and original “system” and, on the other hand, to help this “system” regain the sense of being an integral and full-fledged part of the entire European and, moreover, worldwide culture.
“So for 20 years now I have been trying to understand and help define the nature of Ukrainian history and culture. But I must say this turned out to be the most complicated and difficult task that I have ever taken up. I always have a feeling that I am unable to fathom the depths of this culture.”
Quite a few Western researchers have been looking at Ukrainian history through “Russian spectacles” for a long time. Has anything changed here now?
“In a way, it is still so. Unfortunately, there are very few researchers of Ukraine in Italy and Europe as a whole, especially those academics who are not of Ukrainian origin. On the other hand, I must say that some extremely valuable studies have been published, especially in history and sociopolitical sciences, over the past 20 years. This greatly boosted the knowledge of Ukraine among Slavicists as well as the general public.
“Paradoxically, today, at least in Italy, ordinary people may show more interest in Ukraine and sometimes know about Ukraine more than many Slavicists do. This occurred owing to daily contacts with the Ukrainians who work in Italy—mostly women. Although, in my view, this is a purely Italian (maybe, also French) phenomenon, it is of paramount importance. Besides, there are a lot of new Ukrainian associations abroad, and they are also making a sizable contribution to the proliferation of knowledge about Ukraine.
“Another important factor is, naturally, the generation gap in academia. The ‘old’ professors are less inclined to revise the previously-acquired knowledge, while the younger generation has been formed on other principles of learning and, hence, they are evincing interest in new phenomena. I must say that Western Slavicists also often perform the important function of ‘softening’ the judgments of some Ukrainian scholars who tend to assess their own history in too exalted terms or to focus on certain ‘exclusive’ or narrowly ‘nationalistic’ values. Patriotism and protection of national identity are sacred principles and, I would say, the duty of every citizen. But occasional exaggerations are harmful.”
What do you think about the steps Ukraine is taking to spread scholarly knowledge about itself in Western Europe and Italy in particular?
“Ukraine has made a Herculean effort and achieved great successes in reviving its intelligentsia after the 1930s disasters and the postwar Russification drive. This is still little known abroad. Unfortunately, there are not many academics in today’s Ukraine, who know how to convey their knowledge in a way that non-Ukrainians could understand. Among those who bear the blame for this are various governments, which failed to create instruments for promoting the required image of Ukrainian culture abroad.
“The number of the institutes of culture and politicians capable of conceiving and implementing projects for foreign countries is too low. Some directors of foreign institutes of culture in Kyiv seem to be more efficient and active than Ukrainians themselves. For example, the Polish Embassy’s Institute of Culture is doing important work by way of publishing the studies of its associates. After all, the Italian Embassy’s Institute of Culture is also doing extremely important work aimed at mutual acquaintance of the two peoples via the cultural events organized by Prof. Franco Balloni.
“The government of Ukraine should do its level best to train this kind of experts and establish such institutes abroad: it would be enough to have four or five such institutes in Europe, which does not mean an unbearable financial burden. All you need is goodwill, intellectual openness, and creative imagination.”
Now Ukrainians are “restoring” the knowledge of the Mazepa era, the era of baroque culture. In particular, the newspaper Den/The Day and the National Museum of Ukrainian History have come up with an initiative to declare 2009 the Year of Mazepa in Ukraine. What is your opinion of Mazepa’s contribution to common European culture?
“A typical representative of that-day European culture, Mazepa understood that it was necessary to ‘centralize’ power, establish diplomatic relations, and have his country represented at all important courts of Europe. He was also aware that culture and its proliferation were the main prerequisites for building a political and national future. Unfortunately, the international situation and the never-ending anarchism of Cossacks made it impossible to implement Mazepa’s project. Still, Ukraine was well-known in the 17th century at all European courts thanks to its powerful Cossack army, and Mazepa became a European ‘myth’—not in the least because of his tragic finale. Anyway, he was fully able to become a ‘good ruler’ and an ‘ideal prince,’ which also contributed to the creation of this myth.”
What do you think of Mazepa as an Orthodox culture figure? Why did Ukrainian Orthodox hierarchs fail to support him in the decisive moment of opposing Peter I, in spite of the hetman’s exceptional contribution to the defense of faith?
“Most of the Ukrainian metropolitans and bishops did not back Mazepa because they could not do so: Peter I would have destroyed them all and, besides, this did not fit the mentality of the Orthodox Church. Mazepa was a sincere and profound believer, but he also knew that a strong church, with all its privileges, architectural investments, and all kinds of donations, would be a useful and indispensable pillar for any project of political autonomy.
“If Mazepa and the king of Sweden had won, the church hierarchy would have supported him (Feofan Prokopovych would have perhaps continued to write for Mazepa, not Peter I) and this would have also formed a loyal majority, which would have stood up for the ‘Orthodox Prince’ Mazepa.
“Unfortunately, Mazepa lost the battle and the war, while the church hierarchy is always tied up with and bows to secular authorities. Therefore, church hierarchs could not rise up against Peter by force of their philosophical tradition and mentality as well as due to concrete objective circumstances.”
In 2003 Vicenza hosted a scholarly conference on the Ukraine Holodomor. The proceedings were soon published (the book was launched at Kyiv Mohyla Academy in September 2005). The year 2007 saw the publication of the Ukrainian version of Letters from Kharkiv edited by Prof. Andrea Graziosi. These are only two examples of cooperation between Ukrainian and Italian academics in this field. But, in general, what does the ordinary Italian know about the Ukraine Holodomor, is he or she aware of the true scale of this tragedy? Do they know the nature of the great difficulties faced by what James Mace defined post-genocidal Ukrainian society?
“The Holodomor is not yet sufficiently known in Italy. Naturally, more people know this today in comparison with the situation 20 or even 10 years ago. Many have a general idea of this tragedy but are unaware of the true dimensions, essence, and consequences of this tragedy. What is more, there are some academics and institutions that shun a frank discussion of this issue for ‘fear’ of shattering the USSR myth and blaming the present-day Russia. (The same applies to the Katyn story.)
“There are some downright ‘negationists,’ which does not surprise me if you take into account the number of those who continue to deny even the Holocaust. If one can deny the Holocaust, we should not be surprised that many can still be unaware of or deny the Holodomor.
“After all, I must say that ordinary people are reluctant to think about past tragedies, especially those that were experienced by other peoples. People would like to forget this, all the more so that they are much more alarmed over the current situation, so it is the minority that show interest in the great tragedies of the past, especially when, let me say this again, it is about ‘somebody else’s’ tragedies.”
As is known, in the fall of 2004 you initiated a letter in support of the Orange Revolution, to which hundreds of academics in Italy and other countries affixed their signatures. What is your vision of those events and subsequent developments in Ukraine?
“The fall of 2004 was Europe’s most breathtaking event after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Naturally, those events have lost their appeal in the public mind since then: the image of Ukraine has been greatly damaged abroad by the gas crisis, a mindless internal political hassle, corruption (it is horrible, for example, that you have sometimes to bribe a customs officer on the border so that he allows you to carry a piece of Parmesan cheese!), occasional anti-Semitic comments, and various instances of disrespect for certain fundamental principles of civil coexistence.
“All this often makes people forget the deep and sincere affection they felt for Ukraine in November–December 2004. What remains very positive, however, is grassroots attitude to the Ukrainians, especially women, who work in Italy. Yet, in spite of these unfortunate black spots, I must say that when I travel to Ukraine, I always see economic, social, and cultural progress. Regretfully, I can see little progress in politics, but I would rather hope that this progress is bound to occur in the next decade.
“I do believe that the legacy of civil and national awareness and the desire to defend independence and self-identity aroused by the Orange Revolution will remain in the serene memory of society. This memory may revive very fast in case of an urgent need or may ripen gradually, only to show itself in new political circumstances and forms. Although Ukraine is unpredictable, I’d like to hope that the process of maturing will continue. I only wish the crisis would not bring down the national economy. And the government ought to think about long-term investments (infrastructure, modern industry, social security, and culture) instead of pumping energy and money into not always transparent schemes.”
A hot-heated debate has been raging in Ukraine for years on the content and guidelines of national history manuals. How do Italian school manuals cover the history of Ukraine and Eastern Europe as a whole?
“I do not know much about school manuals, but I am afraid that Italian schools pay very little attention to Ukraine. Nor are other countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the focus. Naturally, Poland and former Czechoslovakia are regarded as countries that gained independence after World War One and became act one of World War Two, as they were occupied by the Nazis. Surely, Serbia is also mentioned in connection with the outbreak of World War I and the formation of Tito’s Yugoslavia. More attention is paid to Russia in connection with Napoleon’s invasion, the period of the October Revolution, and, finally, the division of Europe into two parts in the era of communism. However, Ukraine is not seriously studied in this context.
“The situation in universities is better. Before 1990, various texts in the anthologies of world literature were translated and a couple of history books were published in Italy. The 1930s saw the publication of some translations of Taras Shevchenko’s poems, short stories and fragments of works by Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky, Volodymyr Vynnychenko, Olha Kobylianska, and some other authors.
“It was not until after 1990 that some important translated publications came out—from such classics as Kotsiubynsky, Mykola Kostomarov, Mykola Khvyliovy, and Ostap Vyshnia, to the writers of independent Ukraine, such as Lina Kostenko, Yurii Andrukhovych, Serhii Zhadan, Oksana Zabuzhko, Liubko Deresh, et al.
“Important studies in the history of Ukraine were written and came out as chapters in A History of the USSR (Ettore Cinnella, Andrea Graziosi) and as separate books (Graziosi, Giulia Lami). Cinnella and Federico Argentieri have made a contribution to research on the Holodomor.* A lot of important symposiums have been held.** Britain, France, and Germany have published a lot of books devoted to political and social problems, as well as first-class books on the history of Ukraine.
“There are very few publications on literature. The only new history of literature in the West is a book by Oxana Pachlowska: it is a fundamental, fact-packed, and useful study. But Europe has not yet seen a published history of literature conceived and written by a scholar who is not an ethnic Ukrainian or has no Ukrainian roots. This remains one of the top-priority tasks for the future.”
P.S. The Day expresses sincere gratitude to the professor at Rome La Sapienza University, Oxana Pachlowska, for assistance with this interview and translation.
* In particular, their efforts helped to publish the Italian translation of Robert Conquest’s Harvest of Sorrow (Rome, 2004) which had remained neglected until then for 18 years—Ed.
** In addition to the above-mentioned international symposiums organized by Giovanna Brogi Bercoff, there have been such important symposiums in the past few years as “The Kyiv Era and its Legacy in Encountering the West” (L’Istituto per le Ricerche di Storia Sociale e Religiosa, Vicenza, 2002), “The Death of Earth. The Great Famine in Ukraine in 1932–1933” (L’Istituto per le Ricerche di Storia Sociale e Religiosa, Vicenza, 2003), and “Religious History of Ukraine” (Fondazione Ambrosiana Paolo VI, Gazzada [Varese], 2003). The proceedings of all these academic symposiums have been duly published—Ed.
The Day’s FACT FILE
Giovanna Brogi Bercoff is a Slavicist, a researcher of Poland and Russia, an expert in Slavic linguistics and the history of Eastern Slavic languages. An author of numerous studies in the languages and literature of Slavic Medievalism, as well as the Polish, Croatian, Ukrainian, and Russian historiographies of Renaissance and Baroque.
She began her career as an associate professor at the University of Urbino (the birthplace of Raphael). From 1994 onwards, ordinary professor of Slavic philology at the same university and later at the University of Milan (Department of Linguistic, Literary and Philological Studies, Section of Slavic and Finno-Ugric Studies). President of the Italian Association of Slavicists (1993–1998), director of Milan University’s Institute of Eastern European Languages and Literatures, member of the presidium of the International Committee of Slavicists, president of the International Commission for the History of Slavic Studies attached to the International Committee of Slavicists, member of the International Association of Medievalists.
She served on the editorial board of the journal Richerche Slavistiche (“Slavic Studies,” 1987–1997), in 1998 she joined the editorial board and then became editor in chief of the journal Russica Romana. She currently heads Studi Slavistici, a journal of the Italian Association of Slavicists published at the University of Florence. Since 1983 until the present time she has taken part in most of the international congresses of Slavicists and other Slavist symposiums in various countries of the world. She has also delivered lectures in the universities of Warsaw, Krakow, Wroclaw, Poznan, Moscow, Bonn, W rzburg, Greifswald, Paris, New York, and Montreal, as well as at Harvard and Yale.
Ms. Brogi Bercoff was among those who founded the Italian Association of Ukrainian Studies. A member of the association’s directive committee since 2000, she has been the association president and promoter of many initiatives that are extremely important for the development of Ukrainian initiatives. In 1999–2008 she was West European Vice-President of the International Association of Ukraine Researchers. A foreign member of Ukraine’s National Academy of Sciences since 2003.
