Orthodox Religion, Little Russian Identity, and Imperial Narrative in the Works of a Kharkiv Black Hundred Activist: The Case of Archpriest Tymofiy Butkevych (1854–1925)

Abstract

The study aims to throw light on the complex ideological synthesis underlying the writings of Tymofiy Butkevych — a prominent representative of the white clergy and one of the most influential Black Hundred activists in Kharkiv at the turn of the 20th century. Analyzing his journalism and academic scholarship, the paper reconstructs the intertwining of the three key elements of Butkevych’s worldview: Orthodox tradition, Little Russian identity, and imperial narrative. Butkevych appears as a typical representative of the conservative strand in the Little Russian discourse. His stance combined unwavering loyalty to the Russian Empire with a pronounced regional patriotism. He interpreted Ukrainian cultural and historical particularity as a form of Russianness, which allowed him to stress the ethnic and cultural uniqueness of “Little Russians” while at the same time denying their political subjecthood. An important aspect of the study is the analysis of Butkevych’s historical narratives. In his works, the Cossack myth received a distinctive interpretation: the events of 1654 were represented as “unification”, and the images of the Koliivshchyna (Honta, Zaliznyak) — as symbols of Orthodox resistance. In a manner typical of Little Russian identity, Butkevych portrayed Taras Shevchenko as a fighter against Catholic and Jewish influence and an ally in the struggle against “Little Russian separatism”. Butkevych used the term “Ukraine” as a synonym for “Little Russia”, integrating it into the imperial discourse, and expanded the notion of the Ukrainian space through the concept of the “South of Russia”. Butkevych’s political speeches, particularly on the subject of the Kholm region, employed ethnographic arguments, which indicates the adoption of elements of modern nationalism, built on the pre‑modern identities constructed in the Synopsis of 1674. The study lays bare the limitations of simplistic binary models of “imperial vs. national” and highlights the plural and layered nature of identities in the Ukrainian lands of the Russian Empire. The case of Butkevych shows that at the outset of the 20th century the boundary between “Little Russian” and “Ukrainian” was more permeable than historians often admit. His thought illustrates the need for a more nuanced approach to the study of conservative ideologies, accepting that they could combine imperial and regional elements in diverse ways.