Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T07:36:12.994Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Present State of Ukrainian Historiography in Soviet Ukraine: A Brief Overview

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Lubomyr R. Wynar
Lubomyr R. Wynar*
Affiliation:
Center for the Study of Ethnic Relations, Kent State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“To write history well, one must live in a free society.”

— Voltaire to Frederick the Great

Historiography, as a special historical discipline, is defined as a history of historical scholarship reflecting the development of historical thought. In the context of this definition the study of modern Ukrainian historiography is directly related to the analysis of present historiographical trends, historical concepts, the conditions under which the discipline developed, the role of Ukrainian historical research centers in Ukraine and the West, the nature and scope of historical serials, critical evaluations of contributions of individual historians, as well as the study of characteristics of various historical schools. In my opinion, the older definition of historiography as the history of historical writings is too narrow and sometimes results only in critical or enumerative historical bibliography covering writings of individual historians.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , Spring 1979 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 by the Association for the Study of the Nationalities (USSR and East Europe) Inc. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. For general studies on Ukrainian historiography see Dmytro Doroshenko, A Survey of Ukrainian Historiography (New York, 1957); Alexander Ohloblyn, Ukrainian Historiography, 1917–1956 (New York, 1957). These surveys were published in the U.S. vols. 5 and 6 of The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences; see also O. Ohloblyn, Dumky pro suchasnu ukrains'ku soviets'ku istoriohrafiu (New York, 1963); B. Krupnytsky, Ukrains'ka istorychna nauka pid Sovietamy 1920–1950 (Munich, 1957); V. A. Dyadychenko, F.E. Los, and V.G. Sarbey, Development of Historical Science in the Ukrainian SSR (Kiev, 1970); Jaroslav Pelenski, “Soviet Ukrainian Historiography after World War II,” Jahrbücher fur Geschichte Osteuropas, vol. 12, no. 3 (1964); Stephan Horak, “Ukrainian Historiography 1953–1963,” Slavic Review, vol. 24, no. 2 (1965); Akademia Nauk URSR, Instytut Istorii, Rozvytok istorychnoi nauky na Ukraini za roky radians'koi vlady (Kiev, 1973).Google Scholar

2. Doroshenko, D., Survey, p. 2.Google Scholar

3. The analysis of M. Hrushevskyi's historical concepts is presented by Wynar, Lubomyr R., “Ukrainian-Russian Confrontation in Historiography: Michael Hrushevskyi versus the Traditional Scheme of ‘Russian’ History,” The Ukrainian Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 1, 1974.Google Scholar

4. For a detailed analysis, see Wynar, L. R., Mykhailo Hrushevskyi i Naukove Tovarystvo im. Shevchenka (1894–1930) (Munich, 1970).Google Scholar

5. M. Hrushevskyi established his historical school in Lviv prior to World War I, and in Kiev during 1920s. Among his students one finds such noted historians as I. Krypiakevych, M. Korduba, S. Tomashivskyi, V. Lypynskyi, V. Herasymchuk, M. Chubatyi, O. Baranovych, S. Shamray, and I. Hermaize. It is important to note that Hrushevskyi represented in Ukrainian historiography a “populist trend.” His students accepted Hrushevskyi's historiographical scheme of East European history, his terminology, and scientific methodology. Some of them (S. Tomashivskyi, V. Lypynskyi and others) parted with their mentor's populist interpretation of Ukrainian historical process and founded a state-oriented historical school stressing the role of the “state” in Ukrainian history.Google Scholar

6. Krupnytskyi, B., Istorychna nauka, pp. 5–15; Ohloblyn, O., Historiography, p. 307-308.Google Scholar

7. Ohloblyn, O., Historiography, p. 300.Google Scholar

8. Black, C. E., “History and Politics in the Soviet Union,” in Rewriting the Soviet History, ed. by Black, C. E., 2nd ed. New York, 1962, p. 32; The nature of Soviet historical scholarship is adequately discussed by several authors: John Keep and L. Brisby, eds., Contemporary History in the Soviet Mirror (New York, 1964); Nancy Whittier-Heer, Politics and History in the Soviet Union (Cambridge, Mass., 1971); Lowell Tillett, The Great Friendship: Soviet Historians on the Non-Russian Nationalities (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1969); I. Myhul, “Politics and History in the Soviet-Ukraine: A Study of Soviet Ukrainian Historiography,” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1973).Google Scholar

9. According to this formula Ukraine's annexation to Russia in 1654 was considered as “lesser evil” than possible annexation by Poland. For explanation see Shteppa, K. Russian Historians and the Soviet State (New Brunswick, N.J., 1962), pp. 276–284; See also Nichkina, N., “K voprosu o formule ‘Naimenshee zlo',” Voprosy istorii, no. 4, 1951.Google Scholar

10. This concept was advocated in Soviet Ukrainian historical and political literature prior to and after World War II. In 1947, for instance, K. Lytwyn, then Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, stated in his article “On the History of Ukraine” (Bolshevik, No. 7 [1947]) that Ukrainian historians must bepict the unity of the Russian and Ukrainian people, and disprove Hrushevskyi's “bourgeois” concept of Ukrainian history. The same views were expressed by many historians including O. K. Kasymenko, then Director of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of Ukrainian SSR, who stated in 1950, “the Ukrainian history and its periodization is only comprehensible on the basis of unity of the historical destiny between Russian and Ukrainian nations,” Kasymenko, O. K., “Rozrobka i vysvitlennia osnovynykh etapiv istorii Ukrainy,” Naukovi Zapysky. A. N. Instytut Istorii Ukrainy, vol. 3 (1950): 3.Google Scholar

11. Diadychenko, V. A., Kasymenko, A. K., Los, F. E., eds. Istoria Ukrains'koi SSR, 1 (Kiev, 1956): 281–282. For interpretation of the Pereiaslav thesis see J. Pelenski, “Historiography”, pp. 381-399; A. Moskalenko, Khmelnytskyi and the Treaty of Periaslav in Soviet Historiography (New York, 1955). In American historiography the clear interpretation of the “reunification” concept is presented by Lowell Tillett, Great Friendship, pp. 298-299, 336-340. The official theses of the Three Hundredth Anniversary of the Reunion of the Ukraine with Russia were prepared and published by the Central Committee of the Communist Party in 1954 in Russian, Ukrainian, and other languages.Google Scholar

12. According to Russian historians “the great Russian” nationality developed a distinct and brilliant culture exercising a great influence on the cultures of the brotherly nations, Ukrainians and Belorussians. Sakharov, A. M. and Muravev, V. A., Ocherki Russkoi kultury IX-XVIII (Moscow, 1962), p. 117.Google Scholar

13. See Kotlar, M., Istorychne mynule ukrains'koho narodu i zarubizni falsyfikatory (Kiev, 1974); Varvartsev, M. M., Burzuazno-natsionalistychna propahanda na sluzbi antykomunizmu (Kiev, 1974).Google Scholar

14. KPRS v rezolutsiakh i rishenniakh zizdiv, konferentsii i plenumiv (Kiev, 1964), p. 360.Google Scholar

15. Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Moscow, 1977), pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

16. “Pro 60-richcha vstanovlennia radians'koi vlady na Ukraini,” Ukrains'kyi istorychnyi zhurnal, (later cited as (UIZh), no. 12 (1977), p. 5.Google Scholar

17. UIZh, no. 1 (1978), p. 154.Google Scholar

18. Bilinsky, Yaroslav, The Second Soviet Republic: The Ukraine After World War II (New Brunswick, N.J., 1964), pp. 206–207.Google Scholar

19. For additional information see Pelenski, J., “Historiography,” pp. 389–394, Bilinski, Second Soviet Republic, pp. 207-209; Tillett, Great Friendship, pp. 225-228.Google Scholar

20. Kasymenko, D. K., “Novi osiahy Ukrains'kykh istorykiv,” Ukrains'kyi istorychnyi Zhurnal. no. 3 (1963), p. 140.Google Scholar

21. Pelenski, Jaroslav, “Shelest and his Period in Soviet Ukraine (1963–1972): A Revival of Controlled Ukrainian Autonomism,” Ukraine in the Seventies, ed. Potichnyj, P. J. (Oakville, Ont. 1975, p. 284. See also Tillett, L., “Ukrainian Nationalism and the Fall of Shelest,” Slavic Review, 34 (1975): 752–768.Google Scholar

22. The Ukrainian Academy of Sciences was established by Skoropadskyi, Hetman P. in Kiev in 1918 and in the 1920s constituted the major Ukrainian research center. Since the 1930s the Academy has been under strict party supervision. For references see Polons'ka-Vasylenko, N., Ukrains'ka Akademia Nauk, 2 vols. (Munich, 1955-58); Istoria Akademii Nauk Ukrains'koi RSR, 2 vols. (Kiev, 1967).Google Scholar

23. Pritsak, O., Chomu katedry ukrainoznavstva v Harvardi (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), p. 126.Google Scholar

24. Critical reviews on UIZh were published by Zdan, M. in Ukrains'kyi istoryk, 2 (1965): 89–93; Subtelnyi, O., Recenzija, 1 (1970): 38-48. It is interesting to note that UIZh excludes reviews of Western publications by Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian historians, thus limiting its scope. Subtelnyi stressed the provincialism of UIZh (“turgid style” and “stultifying ideological orthodoxy”). See also S. Horak, “Historiography,” pp. 265-266.Google Scholar

25. Critical reviews published by Pritsak, O. in Recenzija, vol. 2, no. 2 (1972); Zdan, M. in Ukrains'kyi istoryk nos. 3-4 (1966); and nos. 1-2 (1967); nos. 1-3 (1969).Google Scholar

26. Reviewed by Zdan, M. in Ukrains'kyi istoryk, nos. 3-4 (1972); Sysyn, F. in Recenzija, vol. 2, no. 2 (1977).Google Scholar

27. Pelenski, J., “Historiography,” p. 288.Google Scholar

28. On recent developments in the Academy see UIZh no. 1 (1978), pp. 141-8, 158-59; UIZh no. 6 (1978), pp. 153-54.Google Scholar

29. Other important collections of archival materials include Vossoedinenie Ukrainy s Rossiej, 3 vols. (Moskva, 1954); Dokumenty Bohdana Khmelnytskoho 1648–1657 I. Krypiakevych and I. Butych, editors (Kiev, 1961); Revolutsia 1905–1907 g. na Ukraine, 2 vols. (Kiev, 1955); Grazhdanskaia voina na Ukraine 1918–1920, 3 vols. (Kiev, 1967). For a brief survey of these publications see S. O. Iakovlev, Ukrains'ka radians'ka archeohrafia (Kiev, 1965), pp. 137-168; also for a general survey see Rozvytok istorychnoi nauky, pp. 37-64; V. A. Dyadychenko, et al., Development of Historical Science, pp. 35-39; Special historical surveys include M. I. Marchenko, Istoria ukrains'koi kultury (Kiev, 1961) and his Ukrains ka istoriohraphia (Kiev, 1959). Both of these publications reflect the revisionist spirit of Ukrainian historiography and are valuable contributions to historical literature.Google Scholar

30. For example, Braichevskyi, M. Iu., Koly i iak vynyk Kyiv (Kiev, 1963) and Pokhodzenna Rusi (Kiev, 1968); I. M. Shekera, Mizhnarodni zviazky Kyivs'koi Rusi (Kiev, 1966); V. I. Dovzenok, Zemlerobstvo drevnoi Rusi (Kiev, 1961). The Archaeological Institute of the Academy published a collective work Narysy starodavnoi istorii Ukrains'koi RSR in 1957, and a comprehensive Archeolohia Ukrains'koi RSR, 3 vols. (Kiev, 1971-73).Google Scholar

31. For instance in Istoria Ukrains'koi RSR, vol. 1 (1967), 800 p. The history of Kievan and Galician Volhynian state is presented on 69 pages, including many illustrations; Kasymenko, O. K. in Istoria Ukrains'koi RSR (Kiev, 1960), 397 p., discusses this period on 26 pages, and in another Istoria Ukrains'koi RSR. K. Dubyna (Kiev, 1967), 407 p., it is discussed on 17 pages.Google Scholar

32. Braichevsky, M. Iu., “Historical Monuments,” Soviet Studies in History, vol. 5, (1966): 36, originally published in Istoria SSSR, no. 2 (1966).Google Scholar

33. The following studies deserve special attention: Krypiakevych, I., Bohdan Khmenytskyi (Kiev, 1954); Shevchenko, F., Politychni ta ekonomichni zviazky Ukrainy z Rossieiu v seredyni XVII st. (Kiev, 1959); K. I. Steciuk, Narodni ruchy na Livobereznii i Slobidskii Ukraini v 50-70-kh rokakh XVII st. (Kiev, 1959); I. D. Boiko, Selanstvo Ukrainy v druhii polovyni XVI-pershil pol. XVII st. (Kiev, 1963). For Soviet interpretation see Rozvytok istorychnoi nauky, pp. 86-89.Google Scholar

34. Holobutskyi, V., a leading Ukrainian historian, has written several major works on Ukrainian Cossacks, including Chernomorskoe kozachestvo (Kiev, 1956), Zaporozskoe kozachestvo (Kiev, 1957), and Zaporozka Sich v ostanni chasy svoho isnuvannia (Kiev, 1961).Google Scholar

35. Braichevskyi, M., a senior research member of the Institute of History (Academy of Sciences of Ukrainian SSR) and author of numerous monographs and articles (Rymska moneta na terytorii Ukrainy, Kiev, 1959), Bila dzerel slo-vians'koi derzavnosty (Kiev, 1968) and others (see footnote no. 30). His essay “Annexation or Reunification?” was submitted for publication to the Institute of History in 1965, but was never published in Ukraine due to its “controversial content.” In 1968 Braichevskyi, together with other Ukrainian intellectuals, signed a protest-memorandum addressed to L. Brezhnev, A. Kosygin and N. Pothorny criticizing and protesting “the political trials of young people belonging to the creative and scientific intelligence” held in Soviet Union (See M. Browne, ed., Ferment in Ukraine (New York, 1971), pp. 191-196. As a result of his protest, Braichevskyi was dismissed from his position in the Academy. The first published edition of his work appeared in Canada in 1972, and an English version by G. Kulchycky was published in Munich in 1974, as Annexation or Reunification. Google Scholar

36. For information and analysis of historical research pertaining to the 19th century, see Myhul, I., “Politics and History,” pp. 163–255; Diadychenko, V. A. et al., Historical Science, pp. 57–58.Google Scholar

37. Korolivsky, M., “Ukrainskoe natsionalnoe dvizenie v period podgotovky i provedenya Oktiabrskoi revolutsii,” Istoria SSSR, no. 5 (1965); also Rybalka, I. K., “Povorot serednioho selanstva Ukrainy na bik Radians'koi vlady,” UIZh, no. 2 (1963); Hamretskyi, I. M., “Do pytannia pro taktyku bilshovykiv shchodo Tsentralnoi Rady v lystopadi 1917 R.”, UIZh, no. 3 (1965).Google Scholar

38. Shevchenko, F. P., “Chomu M. Hryshevskyi povernuvsia na Riadiansku Ukrainu,” UIZh, no. 11 (1966), pp. 13–30.Google Scholar

39. Myhul, Ivan, “Politics and History in the Soviet Ukraine: A Study of Soviet Historiography,” , Columbia University, 1973, p. 6. It seems that Myhul based his dissertation on a content analysis, a popular research method in political science and journalism. Unfortunately, he did not explain his methodology (e.g., his units of content analysis nor sampling procedures in regard to utilized quotations).Google Scholar

40. Pritsak, Recenzija, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 34–35.Google Scholar

41. See Istoria Ukrains'koi RSR, vol. 5 (1977): 7. On Brezhnev and his policies see Robert G. Wesson, Lenin's Legacy: The Story of CPSU (Stanford, 1978), pp. 235-71.Google Scholar