HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES - See also - Harvard University

210 M. MISHKINSKYitself as the beginnings of revolution; others saw it as an opportunity toignite the revolution. 65In the face of all this the stand taken by Pavlo Ivaniv is all the moreremarkable. He did not maintain that, even post factum, it wasdesirable to hold onto the anti-Jewish "point of departure" for theexcesses, as advised in the Narodnaia volia article. On the contrary, hecontended that positive revolutionary action requires a shift from thepogromist mentality. To ensure a real revolutionary struggle theanti-Jewish stance must be abandoned. Ivaniv's opposition to theindiscriminate anti-Jewish pogrom was based on his knowledge thatJews in the Ukraine were not socially uniform but stratified, and thatthe pogrom reflected religious and national hatred. Nonetheless, carefulanalysis points to some inconsistencies and problems in his views.First, Ivaniv's leaflet repeatedly used the term zhid instead of evrei.As has already been noted, in the nineteenth century zhid traditionallyreflected a complexity of negative attitudes towards the Jews. At theend of the 1870s to early 1880s, the term became a symbolic spark inthe Judophobic camp, used to ignite the traditional animosity againstthe Jewish people. The periodical Novoe vremia (New Times), editedby A. Suvorin, led in that development, and Kievlianin kept pace withit. 66 The latter contaminated public opinion both on the eve of thepogroms and after they broke out.Even in the Ukraine, where in the native language zhyd ordinarilymeant simply "Jew," the use of the term was a provocation, due, inpart, to the Russification of the cities. 67 In fact, Ivaniv wrote the65Letters that Akselrod received from Kiev while he was abroad testified that atthe beginning of the pogrom even some Jewish revolutionaries had the expectationthat it would grow into a social revolution. See Akselrod, pp. 219-20, and 227-29.66About the leading role of Suvorin and Novoe vremia in inciting anti-Jewishbehavior in the second half of the 1870s, see E. Ambler, The Career of Aleksei S.Suvorin: Russian Journalism and Politics (1861-1881) (Detroit, 1972).An unknown contemporary author asserted that the articles in Kievlianin on the"Jewish question" are "mostly a deviation from logic and common sense, from themost elementary notions on honor and self-esteem"; V. G.-M.-a [sic], Kievlianinpo evreiskomu voprosu (Kiev, 1880). In the 1870s Kievlianin was also known for itsanti-Ukrainian stand, especially in 1876, the year the tsarist government issued theprohibition against use of the Ukrainian language and culture (Drahomanov hadbeen ousted from Kiev University the year before). For more information aboutthe newspaper, see John D. Klier, "Kievlianin and the Jews: A Decade of Disillusionment,1864-1873," Harvard Ukrainian Studies 5, no. 1 (March 1981): 83-101.67Already at the beginning of the 1860s, the term figured in the disputes betweenUkrainian writers in Osnova and Jewish-Russian publicists in Sion ; see the Evreiskaiaentsyklopediia (St. Petersburg), 2: 736-37. Contemporary resonances and