The Power of Transcription

Khmelnytsky’s status as a prominent figure in Russian, Ukrainian, and Polish history raises questions about how to spell his name when writing about him in English. Obviously, his is far from the only name to have alternate spellings, but his is a name to which ideas of national identity are closely connected. 

Khmelnytsky, as a registered Cossack, was originally in the service of Poland. Period sources from Western Europe use the Polish spelling of “Bohdan Chmielnicki” or a Latinized version of it. In his dealings with Poland, he would have used this spelling himself. Period Jewish sources also use this spelling, as do most writings to this day from a Jewish perspective.

Until recently, most English-speakers encountered Khmelnytsky through either Polish or Soviet sources. The latter, of course, used the Russian form: Bogdan Khmelnytsky. The Ukrainian-speaking community is eager to point out, however, that Khmelnytsky was a Ukrainian and had no dealings with Muscovite Russia before 1654. While Russian and Ukrainian both use Cyrillic alphabets, the pronunciations of certain figures are different, resulting in different transliterations to the Latin alphabet. For many English-speaking Ukrainians, therefore, the use of the Russian form of Ukrainian names denies the existence of a Ukrainian identity and language. Roman Senkus, a professor at the University of Toronto, points out that, “Russians tend to Russianize Ukrainian names. But in informed Western academic and non-Russian circles, that is now considered improper and even insensitive and politically incorrect.”