Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The language behavior of Galician Russophiles during the interwar period

Языковое поведение галицких русофилов в межвоенный период

  • Published:
Russian Linguistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

By the end of the First World War, the once powerful Russophile movement had almost completely disappeared from the intellectual sphere of Galicia. During the interwar period, Russophiles gradually reorganized their activities. As they did not reach a broader audience they developed several new strategies. One particularly intriguing strategy was a reshaped use of the language that in their view ‘did not, does not and cannot exist’ at all: the Ukrainian language. The major innovation compared to Russophile Ukrainian-language publications of the prewar period was the introduction of the ‘phonetic orthography’ that the Russophiles had traditionally rejected with utmost unanimity. The Russophiles argued that a ‘phonetic’ spelling was precisely what was appropriate for a ‘non-existant’ language. The Russophiles’ language behavior thus exceeded all limits of absurdity.

Аннотация

До конца первой мировой войны русофильское движение, которое было довольно сильное во второй половине XIX столетия, почти полностью исчезло из интеллектуальной сферы Галичины. В межвоенный период русофилы восстановили свою деятельность. Поскольку они еще не убедили широкие массы, они развили несколько новых стратегий. Одна из наиболее интересных стратегий состояла в новом употреблении того языка, которого по мнению русофилов ‘не было, нет и не может быть’: украинского языка. Русофилы уже писали и говорили по-украински раньше. Важным инновационным элементом межвоенного периода было введение ‘фонетической правописи’, которую русофилы традиционно отклоняли с особым единогласием. Согласно русофилам, именно ‘фонетическая’ правопись соответствовала ‘несуществующему’ языку. Итак, языковое поведение русофилов переступило все пределы абсурда.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As late as the interwar period, merely ethnonymic and glottonymic oversimplified arguments had not lost their importance for the propaganda of Galician Russophiles. The arguments of their most important leader Vasyl’ Vavryk still followed the traditional stereotypes: “Исходя съ научной точки зрнiя, раздленiе Галицкой Руси на русскихъ и украинцевъ граничитъ съ абсурдомъ, такъ какъ народная масса, отъ незапамятныхъ временъ до ныншнихъ дней, называетъ себя русской. […] Наоборотъ, украинскимъ галицкое населенiе никогда, ршительно никогда, себя не называло, а ,,русинскимъ“ тмъ паче” (Vavryk 1930, p. 3) / ‘From a scholarly point of view, the division of Galician Rus’ into Russians and Ukrainians is close to absurd, as the popular mass, from unmemorable times to date, has called itself Russian. […] By contrast, the population of Galicia has never, expressly never ever, called itself Ukrainian, or ‘Rusyn’ even less so.’ Although Paul Robert Magocsi suggests that there is a need for further differentiation between Old Ruthenians and Russophiles (Magocsi 2002), one does not necessarily have to agree with his framework (Moser 2012, pp. 154–155).

  2. In this regard, I agree with Aleksej Miller (Miller 2003). In fact, Miller’s most important theses were already formulated in the 19th century by the Ukrainian Myxajlo Drahomanov.

  3. On the history of Galician Russophiles see the excellent monograph Wendland (2002); as for some linguistic aspects that are of interest regarding this book, see Moser (2004).

  4. I consciously transliterate the novokursniki from Russian and the starokursnyky from Ukrainian, although both groups usually regarded the Russian standard language as a high variety of their own language.

  5. Many of the sources that are used in this study are rare prints that were however put online in the years after 2004 (the year of the ‘Ukrainian Orange Revolution’), largely thanks to people who apparently question and fight the legitimacy of a separate Ukrainian national and linguistic identity themselves. Other rare sources have been collected by the team working on my FWF project Y-271 ‘1000 Years of Ukrainian Language History in Galicia’ (in this particular case, my expression of gratitude goes to Dr. Philipp Hofeneder and Dr. Katarzyna Hibel).

  6. I have at my disposal one issue dating from 10 February 1923 that still uses the etymological orthography, but is largely written in Ukrainian (Volja naroda 1923/103), and another issue dating from 18 March 1923 (Volja naroda 1923/114), which uses the phonetic orthography. After this issue, the editors largely switched back to the etymological orthography, but continually placed some texts written in phonetic orthography in between.

  7. “Gradually, […] the newspaper was Ukrainized in an attempt to appeal to Ukrainian socialists in Galicia. In 1923 it appeared twice a week in Russian and once in Ukrainian, and from 1924 it appeared only in Ukrainian. From 1926 it was the organ of Sel-Rob. It criticized both Ukrainian nationalists and Russophile conservatives who opposed the USSR, but it did not support the Soviet Ukrainization policy. The editors were Kuzma Pelekhaty and Kyrylo Valnytsky” (Volja naroda 2013[1993]).

  8. During the last year of its existence, the paper was published daily (Snicarčuk 2007, p. 42).

  9. For more Russophile periodicals see the same study. See also Vasyl’ Vavryk’s (1930, pp. 13–16) list of Russophile publications of 1929.

  10. The Russophile ‘Kačkovskij Society’ numbered 2,969 members with 68 reading rooms in 1926 and 4,968 members with 209 reading rooms in 1929 (Matjuško 2006), while the Ukrainian ‘Prosvita Society’ had 14,800 members in 1930 (31,100 in 1935) with 3,100 reading rooms (3,071 in 1935) (Kravciv 1996[1970], p. 2366).

  11. The Russophile ‘Russian Audit Union’ oversaw 250 co-operatives in 1939; its Ukrainian counterpart 3,455 (Ripetsky and Sereda 2001[1993]).

  12. Lidija Snicarčuk (2007, p. 44) reports the following on this journal: “Зазначимо також, що, врахувавши аудиторнi особливостi, редакцiя використовувала i росiйську, й украïнську мови в етимологiчному написаннi (до 1935 р.), i ïхню дивну сумiш, яка ще в другiй половинi ХIХ ст. була предметом обговорення багатьох украïнських часописiв. ‘Наука’ виходила загальним накладом 1200 примiрникiв i розповсюджувалася переважно безкоштовно. Зокрема, 1926 р. iз 65 читалень Товариства, якi функцiонували в Галичинi, лише 28 оформили повну передплату на це видання.” ‘We also declare that with respect to the specific audience, the editors used the Russian and Ukrainian language in etymological spelling (up to 1935), and their strange mixture that had been the object of discussions for many Ukrainian journals in the second half of the 19th century. Nauka was published with a circulation of 1,200 copies and was primarily distributed at no charge. Particularly, in 1926 out of 65 reading rooms of the Society that worked in Galicia, only 28 took out a full subscription of this edition.’

  13. See the information from Nauka 1930 (p. 1), which is written in interwar ‘Russo-Ruthenian’: “Подôбно, якъ въ прошлôмъ роц, такъ и въ семъ будутъ выдаватися мсячнû книжочки пôдъ общимъ заголовкомъ ,,Народная Библiотека“, съ приложенiемъ квартальника ,,Наука“. Отповдно до ршенiй Създа делегатôвъ, Календарь (на 1931 г.) для пôдписчикôвъ ,,Народной Библiотеки“ вôйде уже въ кругъ мсячныхъ книжокъ, т.е. буде считатися за мсяц липень, серпень, вересень. Въ книжочкахъ будутъ оброблятися темы (матерiялы) бôльше практичнû, необходимû для нашого села. Въ другôй половин року начне выходити отдльными книжочками илюстрована Исторiя Руси. Г. Малецъ.” ‘Like last year, we will also edit monthly pamphlets under the general title ‘People’s Library’, with the supplement of the quarterly Nauka. According to the decisions of the Delegates’ Assembly, the ‘Calendar’ (for 1931) will be among the monthly pamphlets addressed to the subscribers of the ‘People’s Library’, i.e., it will be provided for July, August, and September. These pamphlets will dwell upon more practical topics (materials) that are important for our village. From the second half of this year onward, an illustrated ‘History of Rus’ ’ will be published in separate parts. G. Malec”.’

  14. Recently the Galician Russophiles and the Thalerhof discourse in particular have again become a politicized topic of anti-Ukrainian pro-Russian propaganda, see, e.g., the edition Russkaja Galicija (Smolin 2005) which, like Pašaeva’s work, was published by ‘Imperial Tradition’ (Imperskaja tradicija) publishers, as well as several websites.

  15. “Просматривая издания русских галичан межвоенного периода, можно убедиться, что русский литературный язык стал для них родным языком” (Pašaeva 2001, p. 68). ‘Taking a look at the editions by Russian Galicians of the interwar period, one can verify that the Russian literary language had become native to them.’

  16. In the ‘Thalerhof Almanach’, e.g., one finds cartoons by a certain Dr. A. Helytovyč, where one reads in the traditonal orthography: “одно изъ главнихъ [sic] зантiй” ‘one of the major activities’; “въ больниц ” ‘into the hospital’; “санитетъ” ‘sanitarian’, “вехтеръ” ‘guard’, “посл тифа” ‘after typhus’ (Thalerhof Almanach 1964[1932], p. 57; from: Записки о Талергоф свящ. о. Генриха А. Полянскаго (‘Reverend Father A. Poljanskij’s [Poljans’kyj’s] Notes on Thalerhof’)).

  17. Those texts that are of less immediate interest in terms of their content have not been translated.

  18. “И в то же время на родном наречии выходили популярные книжки и периодические издания (лингвистам еще, наверное, предстоит решать, насколько этот язык близок к современному украинскому).” ‘And at the same time popular books and periodicals were edited in the native language (probably, linguists will have to decide how close this language is to contemporary Ukrainian).’

  19. Those passages that basically convey the same message are highlighted in bold print.

  20. This assumption is indirectly confirmed by an invitation for all ‘Thalerhofians’ to send their addresses with an eye to the preparation of the first Thalerhof Convention in the newspaper Russkij golos: “Упрашаеся всхъ талергофцвъ о поданье своихъ адресовъ въ цли устроеня създа талергофцвъ. Редакцiя ,Русского Голосу‘ ” ‘All Thalerhofians are requested to deliver their addresses with an eye to the organization of a Thalerhof conference’. The editiors of ‘The Russian Voice’ (Russkij golos 1922, p. 4). The language of this invitation could not have been less Russian.

  21. ‘The Mazepians began preparing for departure with ‘calf-like’ enthusiasm, which was annoying to us, the Russians. And the time for departure had come. Some of them even said goodbye to us with the following words, ‘May God let you give the opportunity to leave this place soon as well!’ However, as soon as they had passed through the gate with their baggage to walk to the Abtissendorf station they shouted at us loudly with wild glee. ‘And may you, Moscophiles, all perish here!’ Subsequently they sang their ‘Ukraina has not yet perished’ … […] In the morning of that same day one intellectual (!) [! in the original] publicly damned me while I was preparing for my prayer, ‘Beshrew thee for your prayer!’ This was how far morals had fallen.’

  22. Here, the Russian prerevolutionary orthography is largely preserved, with the exception of the obligatory spelling of jors in hard stem endings. Instantally, it is interesting to note that in the mid-1960s, the Soviet authorities had allowed Vavryk to collaborate with the American Russophiles.

  23. The syntax is Ukrainian.

  24. The word is quite archaic in standard Russian, see unmarked преступлений ‘crime’.

  25. See the following poem: “В память вонных мучеников: Кобы вiтры не вiяли, / То бы тут не были, // Коб не люты вороженькы, / Мы бы ся любили. // Кажут люде, што суд буде, / А суда не буде, // Бо без суда нас связали, / Поламали груди” (Thalerhof Almanach 1964[1930], Vol. 3, n.p.; introductory part); “Appendix: n.p. Сел. Iван Тернопольскiй: Вiд Бродщини до Карпат (В двайцяту рiчницю мук Галицкоi Руси.) [[4 pp!]: Ген далеко – на край свiта / Думками сягаю // В двайцятii [sic] роковини / Мук рiдного краю. // И своiми думоньками / Стрiлою лiтаю / Над тобою мiй ти любий, / Дорогий мiй раю. […] [Ending:] Чого плачеш, рiдна Мамо. / Тут над нами, над вмерцями, // В чужинi, в краю проклять? / Iди Русе-Мать дина, / Роди новi поколiня / Вiд Бродщини до Карпат!“ Пониква, 10 липня 1934 р.” (Thalerhof Almanach 1964[1932], n.p.; appendix).

  26. The highlighting in boldface is mine, M.M.

  27. The use of isolated word forms that deviate from Modern Standard Ukrainian such as война ‘war’ without the Ukrainianizing effect of i<o does not mean a lot. The spelling война instead of вiйна was quite typical of texts that were written in Ukrainian by authors with a Ukrainian identity too; some of these Ukrainian authors would even still use вольний instead of вiльний ‘free’, as encountred in Vavryk’s fragment.

  28. Ironically, those who are not familiar with the history of these forms might therefore have come to the (erroneous, of course) conclusion that the Galician Russophiles were sympathizers of the orthographic rules for Ukrainian which had been introduced in 1927/1928 in Soviet Ukraine before they were abandoned during the Stalinist terror of 1933.

  29. The Russophile priest Volodymyr Venhrovyč used a language that was close enough to Russian that it might be compared to the ‘Russo-Ruthenian’ publications of the second half of the 19th century (Moser 2011a, pp. 602–626), see the following fragment from Вступительное слово произнесенное при открытии Торжественнаго Общаго Собранiя членовъ Общества им. Михаила Качковскаго 1 ноября 1937 г. предс дателемъ сяноцкой филiи Общества, свящ. Владимiромъ Венгриновичемъ, настоятелемъ прихода въ Королик Волошскомъ ‘Introductory speech delivered during the opening of the Festive General Assembly of the Kačkovskij Society members on 1 November 1937 by the President of the Sanok branch of the Society, Reverend Vladimir Vengrovič, the priest of the parish in Korolik Vološskij [i.e., Królik Włoski, in the Beskid area of Poland, M.M.]’: “И Тебе Народе русскiй, Васъ, Братья и Сестры дорогiи и представители обществъ и организацiй народныхъ, въ сiю памятну ювилейну хвилю, коли Вы изъ дальшихъ и близжихъ сторонъ Прикарпатья такъ численно прiхали къ намъ, чтобы вмст съ нами роздлитися чувствами патрiотическими и поддержати насъ въ нашихъ лучшихъ намренiяхъ, привтствую щирымъ русскимъ сердцемъ и складаю Вамъ земный поклонъ, заявляючи Вамъ отъ имени филiи нашу великую благодарность” (Manifestacija 1938, p. 22). At the end of the ‘Manifestation of the Rus(s)ian Spirit’, several greetings to the convention are published. The greetings of the leading Russophile institutions (the Stauropegial Institute and the Central Thalerhof Committee, the ‘Galician-Russian ‘Matica’ ’, the ‘Russian School Society’, etc.) are all kept in pure Russian (Manifestacija 1938, p. 36).

  30. Nina Pašaeva states that the publication was written in the ‘local dialect’ and characterizes its content in a highly tendentious way: “[…] маленькая брошюра ,Галичане i всеруска культура‘, оттиск из газеты ,Земля и воля‘, вышедшая в 1938 г. на местном наречии и подписанная криптонимом B.C. Автор останавливается на духовных ценностях галицко-русской культуры в прошлом и настоящем и приходит к убеждению, что писателей, ученых, артистов Державной Руси интересовали социальные и государственные вопросы, и они боролись за права человека вообще, не обращая внимания на национальные вопросы, которые были им чужды” ‘[…] a small pamphlet ‘Galicians and all-Russian Culture’, an offprint of the newspaper ‘Land and Freedom’ that came out in 1938 in the local dialect and was signed with the cryptonym V.S. The author dwells upon the spiritual values of Galician-Russian culture in the past and present and comes to the conclusion that the writers, learned men, and artist of State Rus’ [sic, M.M.] were interested in social issues and problems of the state, and that they fought for human rights in general without paying attention to national issues that were alien to them’ (Pašaeva 2001, p. 171). In fact, Onyškevyč describes the (alleged) lack of ‘nationalism’ in the Russian state as a major disadvantage. He argues that Galicians have always made a contribution to the development of ‘all-Russian nationalism’, because they have always been forced to withstand their ‘enemies’. Pašaeva was not aware of the author’s true identity yet.

  31. This newspaper is apparently not identical with the organ of the Communist Party of Western Ukraine, which has the same title and which had completely switched to standard Ukrainian during the 1920s.

  32. The verb iнтересовати ‘interest’ is not acceptable in standard Ukrainian, but in interwar Galicia it was widely used (usually with -увати) apart from any Russian impact, see Polish interesować.

  33. “Внутренняя политическая жизнь СССР протекает, в послднее время, под знаком борьбы с сепаратизмом, особенно малорусским и блорусским. […] Эксперименты большевиков в нацiональной политик, их пренебрежительное отношенiе к малорусскому началу, потворствованiе украинству и гоненiе на сепаратизм, что равносильно насажденiю украинства одной рукой, а другой—угнетенiю его, могут привести к тому, что Русь окажется настолько разсоренной, что в отвтсвенный историческiй момент не придется и говорить об единств Россiи. […] Иван Бондаренко” ‘The internal political life in the USSR has been under the sign of the fight against separatism, particularly Little Russian and White Russian [i.e., Belarusian, M.M.] [separatism]. The Bolshevik experiments in national policy, their despiteful attitude toward the Little Russian principle, the indulgence in Ukrainianness and the push toward separatism that is equal to the plantation of Ukrainianness on the one hand and its oppression on the other may lead toward a situation where Rus’ will be estranged to such an extent that at the appropriate historical point, one will not be able to even speak about the unity of Russia. […] Ivan Bondarenko’ (Bondarenko 1934). Bondarenko was not the only person who thus assessed these developments, see Roman Jakobson’s infamous article of 1934 in Die slavische Rundschau (Jakobson 1934).

  34. It is interesting that neither Bondarenko nor anyone else offered another explanation that might have made sense if the Galician Russophiles had actually acquired a good command of Russian by that time. The use of the phonetic orthography might then have reflected the fact that Galician Russophiles had already got used to identifying ‘etymological’ spelling with Russian and its orthoepic rules.

  35. I did not highlight наулучши ‘best’, e.g., because the form is not alien to Galician dialects; nor did I highlight благотворнi ‘benefitial’, a Church Slavonic form that might occasionally be used in Ukrainian too, etc.

Literature

  • Alfavitnyj ukazatel’ (2013[1971]): Alfavitnyj ukazatel’ žertv avstro-mad’jarskogo terrora vo vremja pervoj mirovoj vojny 1914–1918 gg. na oblastjax Galickoj i Bukovinskoj RUSI s biografičeskimi i bibliografičeskimi dannymi. Tret’ja, značitel’no popolnennaja redakcija. Posvjaščaetsja 50-letnej godovščine Talergofskoj tragedii Prikarpatskoj Rusi (sostavil R. D. Mirovič). L’vov 1971. Retrieved from http://talergof.org.ua/alfavitnyi_ukazatel3-n.html (3 July 2014).

  • Bendasjuk, S. Ju. (1909). Grammatika russkogo literaturnogo (obščerusskogo) jazyka dlja russkix v Galičine, Bukovine i Ugrii. L’vov.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bondarenko, I. (1930). Odyn narod – odyn jazyk. L’viv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bondarenko, I. (1934). Bol’ševizm i ukrainstvo. Russkij golos, 643, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, R. (1934). Slavische Sprachfragen in der Sovjetunion. Slavische Rundschau. Berichtende und kritische Zeitschrift für das geistige Leben der slavischen Völker, Jg. VI, 324–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostjuk, H. (1987). Zustriči i proščannja. Kniha perša. Spohady. Edmonton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kravciv, R. M. (1996[1970]): Kravciv, B., R. M. [redakcijnij material]. Prosvita. In V. Kubijovič (Ed.), Encyklopedija ukrajinoznavstva. Slovnykova častyna. Tom 6. L’viv. Retrieved from http://litopys.org.ua/encycl/euii06.htm (22 July 2014).

  • Magocsi, P. R. (2002). Old ruthenianism and russophilism: a new conceptual framework for analyzing national ideologies in late-nineteenth-century Eastern Galicia. In P. R. Magocsi, The roots of Ukrainian nationalism: Galicia as Ukraine’s Piedmont (pp. 99–118). Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manifestacija (1938): Manifestacija ruskoho duxa (sostavyv R. L. L’viv. Nakladom Obščestva im. Myxaila Kačkovskoho). L’viv.

  • Matjuško, L. I. (2006). Halyc’ke moskvofil’stvo mižvojennoho periodu (Avtoreferat dysertaciji na zdobuttja naukovoho stupenja kandydata istoryčnyx nauk. L’vivs’kyj nacional’nyj universytet imeni Ivana Franka, L’viv). Retrieved from http://www.lib.ua-ru.net/diss/cont/238494.html (28 July 2014).

  • Miller, A. (2003). The Ukrainian question. The Russian Empire and nationalism in the nineteenth century. Budapest, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, M. (2004). Review of: A. V. Wendland (2002). Die Russophilen in Galizien. Ukrainische Konservative zwischen Österreich und Rußland 1848–1915. Wien. Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie, 63(1), 237–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, M. (2007). ,,Ruthenische“ (ukrainische) Sprach- und Vorstellungswelten in den galizischen Volksschullesebüchern der Jahre 1871 und 1872. Wien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, M. (2009). Russisch, Ukrainisch und Suržyk des 18. Jahrhunderts in der Privatkorrespondenz ukrainischer Frauen. In J. Besters-Dilger & F. Poljakov (Eds.), Die russische Sprache und Literatur im 18. Jahrhundert: Tradition und Innovation. Gedenkschrift für Gerta Hüttl-Folter (pp. 289–322). Frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser (2011a): Mozer, M., Pryčynki do istoriji ukrajins’koji movy. Vinnycja.

  • Moser, M. (2011b). Ausbau, Aufklärung und Emanzipation – Zu den Grundlagen und Ideologemen des polnisch-ruthenischen (ukrainischen) Sprachenkonflikts im österreichischen Galizien. In R. Reutner (Ed.), Die Nationalitäten- und Sprachkonflikte in der Habsburgermonarchie (Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik. Eine internationale Zeitschrift, Supplement 2, pp. 25–61). Münster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser (2011c): Mozer, M., Ukrajins’kyj P”jemont? Deščo pro značennja Halyčyny dlja formuvannja, rozbudovy i zberežennja ukrajins’koji movy. L’viv, Kyjiv.

  • Moser (2012): Mozer, M., Deščo pro movnu spadščynu halyc’kyx moskvofiliv (na prykladi tvoriv Ivana Naumovyča). In A. Danylenko & S. Vakulenko (Eds.), Studien zu Sprache, Literatur und Kultur bei den Slaven. Gedenkschrift für George Y. Shevelov aus Anlass seines 100. Geburtstages und 10. Todestages (Die Welt der Slaven, 42, pp. 154–180). München, Berlin.

  • Moskvofil’stvo (2001): Makarčuk, S. (Ed.). Moskvofil’stvo: dokumenty i materialy (vstup. st., koment. O. Suxoho). L’viv.

  • Nauka (1930): Nauka. Iljustrovanyj kvartal’nik dlja naroda. Izdanie Obščestva Mix. Kačkovskogo vo L’vove. Nr. 1.

  • Onyškevyč (1938): B. S. Halyčane i vseruska kul’tura (Vidbytka z Zemli i voli) (pp. 25–28). L’viv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pašaeva, N. M. (2001). Očerki istorii russkogo dviženija v Galičine XIX–XX vv. Moskva. Retrieved from http://www.ukrstor.com/ukrstor/paszaeva_oczerk-x.html (28 July 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripetsky, S., & Sereda, O. (2001[1993]). Russophiles. In The Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine. [Originally in: Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Vol. 4, 1993]. Retrieved from http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages\R\U\Russophiles.htm (28 July 2014).

  • Russkij golos (1922): Russkij golos. Nezavisimaja politično-ėkonomičeskaja tyžnevaja gazeta. Četverg, 29 (17.) červnja 1922 g.

  • Russkij golos (1932): Russkij golos. Organ russkoj obščestvennoj mysli, 3(544). L’vov.

  • Smolin, M. B. (Ed.) (2005). Russkaja Galicija i ‘mazepinstvo’. Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snicarčuk, L. V. (2007). Moskvofil’s’ka presa v Halyčyni mižvojennoho periodu: tematyko-typolohični aspekty. Naukovi zapysky Instytutu žurnalistyky, 29, 41–46. Retrieved from http://library.univ.kiev.ua/ukr/host/viking/db/ftp/univ/nz_ij/nz_ij_2010_41.pdf (28 July 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorokowski, A. D. (1991). The Greek-catholic parish clergy in Galicia, 1900–1939 (Doctoral thesis). The University of London School of Slavonic and East European Studies, London. Retrieved from http://www.history.ac.uk/history-online/theses/thesis/greek-catholic-parish-clergy-galicia-1900-39 (28 July 2014).

  • Suxyj, O. M., & Lozyns’ka, I. G. (2010). Stanovyšče ukrajins’koho naselennja v Halyčyni na počatku Peršoji svitovoji vijny ta represiji avstrijs’koji vlady. Naukovi praci istoryčnoho fakul’tetu Zaporiz’koho nacional’noho universytetu, MXXVIII, 151–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thalerhof Almanach (1964[1924]): Talergofskij al’manax. Propamjatnaja kniga avstrijskix žestokostej, izuverstv i nasilij nad karpato-russkim narodom vo vremja vsemirnoj vojny 1914–1917 gg. Vypusk pervyj: Terror v Galičine v pervyj period vojny 1914–1915 gg. L’vov.

  • Thalerhof Almanach (1964[1925]): Talergofskij al’manax. Propamjatnaja kniga avstrijskix žestokostej, izuvestv i nasilij nad karpato-russkim narodom vo vremja vsemirnoj vojny 1914–1917 gg. Vypusk vtoroj: Terror v Galičine. Terror v Bukovine. Otzvuki pečati. Terezin, Gmind, Gnas i dr. Belletristika. L’vov.

  • Thalerhof Almanach (1964[1930]): Talergofskij al’manax. Propamjatnaja kniga avstrijskix žestokostej, izuverstv i nasilij nad karpato-russkim narodom vo vremja vsemirnoj vojny 1914–1917 gg. Vypusk tretij: Talergof. Čast’ pervaja. L’vov.

  • Thalerhof Almanach (1964[1932]): Talergofskij al’manax. Propamjatnaja kniga avstrijskix žestokostej, izuverstv i nasilij nad karpato-russkim narodom vo vremja vsemirnoj vojny 1914–1917 gg. Vypusk četvertyj: Talergof. Čast’ vtoraja. L’vov.

  • Vavryk, V. R. (1930). Spravka o russkom dviženii v Galičine s bibliografiej za 1929 god. L’vov.

    Google Scholar 

  • Včeni (1998): Motornyj, V. (Ed.). Včeni kafedry slov’jans’koji filolohiji. Bibliohrafija včenyx universytetu (ukladač L. Paniv). L’viv. Retrieved from http://library.lnu.edu.ua/bibl/images/Vudanna_WEB_pdf/2Biobibliografija_vchenuch/Slavisty.pdf (22 July 2014).

  • Volja (2013[1993]): Volia naroda (Will of the People). The Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine. Retrieved from http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages\V\O\VolianarodaIT.htm (22 July 2014).

  • Volja naroda (1923/103): Volja naroda. Čislo 103. Rok III. L’vov, subota, 10. ljutoho 1923.

  • Volja naroda (1923/114): Volja naroda. Čislo 114. Rik III. L’viv, nedilja, 18. marta 1923.

  • Wendland, A. V. (2002). Die Russophilen in Galizien. Ukrainische Konservative zwischen Österreich und Rußland 1848–1915. Wien.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Michael Moser

  2. Pázmány Catholic University, Budapest, Hungary

    Michael Moser

Authors
  1. Michael Moser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Moser.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moser, M. The language behavior of Galician Russophiles during the interwar period. Russ Linguist 38, 315–339 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-014-9136-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-014-9136-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation