Short URL for this page:

[image ALT: Much of my site will be useless to you if you've got the images turned off!]
Bill Thayer

[image ALT: Cliccare qui per una pagina di aiuto in Italiano.]

[Link to a series of help pages]
[Link to the next level up]
[Link to my homepage]

[image ALT: link to previous section]

This webpage reproduces a section of

Survey of Ukrainian Historiography
By Dmytro Doroshenko

published by
The Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences
in the U. S., Inc.,

The text is in the public domain.

This page has been carefully proofread
and I believe it to be free of errors.
If you find a mistake though,
please let me know!


[image ALT: link to next section]

 p172  The Ukrainian National Revival in the Right-Bank Ukraine;
The "Ukrainian School" in Polish Literature;
The "Khlopomany"; Volodymyr Antonovych

Ukrainian national tradition was best preserved in the Left-Bank Ukraine in the former Hetman State and in the territory of the Slobidska Ukraine because there the forms of Ukrainian statehood, established in the seventeenth century, continued the longest time. Many old social customs were kept there as late as the beginning of the nineteenth century. Most important of all, the Ukrainian aristocracy, offspring of the Cossack elders, was most firmly established here on the left bank of the Dnieper, and under the superficial layer of Russian culture, language, and manners, it still continued to follow the traditional pattern of life. This explains why the sons and grandsons of the Cossack officers were among the first Ukrainian cultural protagonists in the nineteenth century. For a long time the Ukrainian national movement was kept alive by the representatives of the Ukrainian nobility and gentry, and only later were they joined by the representatives of other social classes, whose most outstanding spokesman was the peasant serf — Taras Shevchenko.

The situation in the Right-Bank Ukraine was different. Here, after the destruction of the Cossacks in the early eighteenth century, there was no social group remaining which could defend the Ukrainian cause. Great spontaneous mass movements, such as the Haydamaky, brought little benefit to the national revival, causing only bloodshed and ruin. The Ukrainian Orthodox nobility, already decimated in the prolonged wars of the XVII  p173 Century, had been thoroughly Catholicized and Polonized. Its ranks were supplemented by colonists from Poland. Even the clergy, both Uniate and Orthodox, accepted the external forms of Polish culture. The only remaining representatives of the Ukrainian people and its tradition were impoverished and illiterate peasants — serfs. The cultural hold of Polish influence was strengthened after the fall of the Rzecz Pospolita, when Poland came under Russian domination and when, under the able leader­ship of T. Czacki,99 the Right-Bank Ukraine was covered with Polish educational and cultural institutions, the most prominent of which was the Lyceum in Kremenets, in Volynia.

Yet even among the Polonized Ukrainian nobility there lay hidden a weak spark of Ukrainian national consciousness. Ethnically, the typical representative of the Polonized Ukrainian nobility differs even today from the Polish nobility.100 Their attachment to the Ukrainian land and their love of the Ukrainian landscape is so deep as to betray them at once as Ukrainians. Therefore, in the nineteenth century, when the Romantic movement coming from the West reached the Right-Bank Ukraine, in opposition to the Polish tradition which always portrayed the Cossacks as the age‑long enemies of Poland, a group of Polish poets and writers in the Ukraine formed the so‑called "Ukrainian School" and set out to idealize the Cossack past.

Beginning with the poet A. Malczewski (1793‑1826), the author of the poem Marya, several representatives of this School devoted themselves in their works to the portrayal of Ukrainian history. B. Zaleski (1802‑1886), S. Goszczyński (1803‑1876), A. Groza (1807‑1875), T. Olizarowski (1814‑1879), and M. Czajkowski (1808‑1886) belong to this group of writers. Some of the writers of the "Ukrainian School," like B. Zaleski and T. Padura (1801‑1872) wrote in Ukrainian as well as in Polish. This literary "Ukrainian" trend in Polish literature was not limited to poetry and belles-lettres alone. It led to an awakening among  p174 Polish scholars of an interest in Ukrainian history and ethnography [. . .]

In addition to Michał Grabowski (1805‑1863) who, besides historical novels of Ukrainian life, wrote historical studies, the following Polish writers made contributions to Ukrainian historiography: Edward Rulikowski, the author of the most valuable monograph Opis powiatu wasilkowskiego (A Description of Vasylkiv District), Warsaw, 1853; of the article "Dawne, drogi i szlaki na prawym brzegu Dniepra" (Old Roads and Paths on the Right Bank of the Dnieper), Ateneum, 1878, III‑IV; and of the book (published posthumously), Opis owiatu kijowskiego (Description of Kiev District), Kiev, 1913; Tadeusz Jerzy Stecki (1838‑1888), the author of several studies concerned with Volynia: Wołyń pod względem statystycznym, historycznym i archeologicznym (Volynia, From a Statistical, Historical and Archeological Point of View), Lviv, 1864‑71, 2 vols.; Gotfryd Ossowski, Antoni Nowoselski, Izydor Kopernicki, and later Alexander Jablonowski, Marjan Dubiecki, Franciszek Rawita-Gawroński, and Józef Tretiak belonged to the same group.

All of these writers were brought up in the strong national traditions of the old Polish state which they believed was tolerant toward Ukrainian culture, and they therefore regarded themselves as Polish citizens, just as Hohol (Gogol) and Danylevsky considered themselves citizens of Russia. During their upbringing and schooling they belonged to the Polish culture and state and therefore could not conceive of an independent status for the Ukraine, except as part of Poland.

Yet even among the Polonized Ukrainians in the Right-Bank Ukraine there arose in the 1850's a movement which led many of them back to the ancestral traditions of the Ukraine. This trend undoubtedly had its origin in the "Ukrainian School" among the Polish writers. Yet the main impulse for this retreat from the Polish toward the Ukrainian camp came from two social trends — the so‑called "balahul'stvo" and later the so‑called khlopomanstvo (literally, "lovers of the peasants"). The first of them manifested itself in the 1830's and 1840's, the second in the 1850's. "Balahul'stvo" was a sort of democratic protest by the  p175 gentry against the overbearing nobility and power­ful land­owners. It was a romantic gesture against outworn modes of life and thought and was linked with glorification of the Cossacks — an attempt to imitate the peasants, their speech and customs, and to sing their songs. With all its romantic and eccentric elements "balahul'stvo" awakened a certain interest in the Ukrainian past.

Khlopomanstvo, which arose in response to the revolutionary ideas of the Polish fighters for freedom (like S. Konarski who was executed in Vilno in 1839) and to Western European influences, was more serious in character. The so‑called "Khlopomany" or "Purists" adopted the platform of the emancipation of the peasantry and democratization of the social system. "Khlopomany," as one of their followers ably put it, "were democrats; they ridiculed aristocratic prejudices and the interminable appeal to historic traditions . . . They recognized that the peasants are not 'cattle' and that they should be respected and educated in their native language. They understood the necessity for religious toleration and for immediate liberation of the serfs."

"Khlopomanstvo" which started among the students, the sons of the gentry who were attending Kiev University, produced in the 1850's a group of men who uncompromisingly adopted the Ukrainian position and left the Polish milieu. Together with representatives of the Ukrainian students from the Left-Bank Ukraine they formed the "Ukrayins'ka Hromada" (Ukrainian Community). This group was headed by Volodymyr Antonovych, Kost' Mykhal'chuk, Borys Poznansky, and Tadeush Ryl'sky.

In their activities they met with great obstacles. They had left the Polish community at a time when Polish youth was preparing itself for an uprising, and as a consequence their step was regarded by the Poles as an act of national treason. Such accusations were made publicly against Antonovych and his comrades and forced them to defend themselves publicly also. This movement from Polish to Ukrainian national traditions, which never assumed wide proportions, was limited to individuals who, nonetheless, made a most valuable contribution to Ukrainian culture. In particular, Antonovych became one of  p176 the greatest figures of the modern Ukrainian historiography and is often regarded as its Nestor.

Volodymyr Antonovych (1834‑1908) was born in Makhnivka in the Province of Kiev, into a small land­owning family. He was educated at the Lyceum in Odessa and later at Kiev University, where he completed two courses of studies: medical (1855) and historico-philological (1860). For some time he was a school teacher, and in 1870, after receiving his Master's Degree he obtained the post of Professor of Russian History at Kiev University. [. . .] After 1863 he also held a post in the Archeographic Commission, and in 1881 he was elected chairman of the "Nestor the Chronicler Society" in Kiev. He died in Kiev in the spring of 1908.

Antonovych played a very active part in Ukrainian life for over fifty years, particularly when he was the chairman of the Kiev "Stara Hromada" (Old Community). His influence spread to Galicia where an agreement, chiefly due to his efforts, was reached in 1890 between Polish and Ukrainian parliamentarians whereby new concessions were brought about for Ukrainian cultural development, especially in the University of Lviv and schools. Antonovych was also instrumental in publishing Pravda in Lviv (1888). When in the same year the Germans displayed an interest in the Ukraine and plans for a "Kievan Kingdom" were discussed, Antonovych was approached as the representative of the Dnieper Ukraine. He was not, however, primarily interested in the political propagation of the Ukrainian cause.

Antonovych expressed his national credo at the beginning of his scholar­ly and public career when a Polish journalist from the Right-Bank Ukraine, Zenon Fisz (1820‑1870) writing under the nom de plume of Tadeusz Padalytsya,101 branded him as a "renegade." In reply Antonovych wrote his Moya ispoved' (My Century) in Osnova, 1862, I, pp83‑96.

In this article he discusses Polish-Ukrainian relations and attacks the contention, which the Polish defenders of "historic  p177 Poland," among them Padalytsya, always maintained, that the old Rzecz Pospolita had a highly advanced social and political system.

Antonovych wrote:

There is good reason to doubt that the political and social system of the nobility and gentry in the old Rzecz Pospolita was ideal, and that the Ukrainian people was, according to an unwritten law, a collection of bandits and rabble capable only of incendiarism and riot . . . I have never maintained that Polish history is devoid of glory; I believe that "golden freedom" really existed in Poland — but only for the nobles. It is true that the nobility and gentry whether Polish, Ruthenian, or Lithuanian, were free from oppression. It is also true that the Polish gentry shared its rights and privileges with the gentry in Lithuania and the Ukraine. Yet of what profit was this to the common people who had no voice in the government, neither in the Sejm nor in the Court, where they were not given the right to defend themselves? Of what benefit is it to the people that the gentry were treated with courtesy, when that same courtesy was, in a way, responsible for the many ills of the people, because it was a product of the Polish social and political life. The goal towards which the Ukrainian people was striving was civil self-government. . . .

You wish to strengthen the rule of the gentry in the Ukraine; you wish to keep the Ukrainian people in total subjugation, and you are prepared to use any means to achieve this. The people want to own the land and you deny it to them. Now you cannot forbid the allotment of land, but you have imposed fabulous prices for its purchase. You not only do not favor the cultural enlightenment of the peasants, but you actively obstruct by perverted accusations and denunciations the activities of those who wish to do such work.

To Padalytsya's charge that he was defending the Haydamaks, Antonovych replied: "It is true that we are proud of Gonta and Zaliznyak as representatives of the people in their time, as indeed they were. It is not our fault that the gentry kept the peasants in a state of ignorance, abused them each day morally and materially and in the end the gentry paid a high price for it. It is your responsibility to remove the causes of these rebellions; for our part we do not wish to see them repeated and that is why we are in favor of spreading enlightenment among the peasants."

 p178  Finally, Antonovych comes to a personal defense:

You are right, Mr. Padalytsya; I am a renegade. But you forgot that it is important to know the meaning of this word and to realize what has been renounced and what accepted in its place. Fate decreed that I be born into a family of gentry in the Ukraine. In my boyhood I shared all the views and social and national prejudices of my milieu. Yet when I grew up I calmly reconsidered my position in society and the ambitions of my class, and I realized that morally my class is doomed because it does not renounce its claims to the country and the people. I realized that the Polish gentry have this choice before them if they want to be at peace with their conscience: either to come to love the people amongst whom they live, to take to heart the people's interests and needs, to return to the people and to the ancestral national tradition which their predecessors abandoned, to demonstrate their penitence by unceasing work and love and thus to wash away the injustices which they have inflicted on the common people, who have fed generations of landlords and received in return abuse and contempt — or, if the courage to do all this is lacking, to move to the Polish lands inhabited by Polish people, so as not to be parasites. This would liberate them from the constant reproach that they are colonists, who live by the labor of others and yet obstruct the path of development of a people to whose country they came uninvited, that they have foreign ideas, and that they belong to those who wish to bring to a halt native progress without taking responsibility for their actions.

I chose the first course, since I was not so spoiled by gentry customs and prejudices as to find it more difficult to part with them than with the common people, among whom I grew up, whom I knew and sympathized with, seeing their hard lot in every village which was governed by one of the gentry; to whose melancholy songs I listened and whose kind words and sorrow­ful tales I often heard. . . . I came to love the people more than my gentry habits or dreams.

Antonovych related further how he tried to reach a compromise with the gentry, how he attempted to persuade them that their policy in the Ukraine was destructive — all in vain. Therefore he had no choice but to abandon his class, that privileged strata of society — the gentry, and join the ranks of those who wished to work for the welfare of the Ukrainian people. Antonovych declares at the end that he is as proud of his "secession" as if, had he been a slave owner, he had become an abolitionist.

 p179  Antonovych's friends went through a similar evolution and they all joined him in his stand, committing themselves to defend the people's lot.102 Their ideology was identical with that which the Ukrainian Populists developed in the Left-Bank Ukraine, by means of which, like the Russian "conscience-stricken noblemen," they were trying to absolve their sins against the people by devoting themselves to cultural enlightenment among the peasants.

However, neither the Khlopomany on the Right-Bank nor the Populists on the Left-Bank of the Dnieper, who now joined forces in the Kiev Hromada (Community), developed a clear political ideal or a definite program of their own. In practice, the "love for the people" of these young enthusiasts was limited to small-scale educational and cultural work (Sunday schools, publication of popular literature) while some of them abandoned their studies and became village clerks. The absence of a definite national outlook and of awareness of being part of a historical tradition had an effect on Antonovych's studies in the field of history where his achievement is the greatest.

His work in historiography was centered in the Kiev Archeographic Commission. As a member of its Editorial Board, Antonovych was responsible for the publication of seven large volumes of documentary material relating to different aspects of the history of the Right-Bank Ukraine. Limited in his studies as to sources and content by the regional interests of the Commission, Antonovych did not endeavor to encompass Ukrainian history as a whole, or to give a comprehensive survey of it. This was often held against him (e.g., by Drahomanov)103 but he directed  p180 all his critical efforts to the analysis of individual phenomena in the Ukrainian past, clearly circumscribed by time and place. Herein also lies the value of Antonovych's studies. As a rule, Antonovych wrote an introductory study to each volume of material in the series Arkhiv Yugo-Zapadnoi Rossii (Archives of Southwestern Russia).

Only toward the end of his life did Antonovych attempt to give a survey course of Ukrainian history, starting with the times of the Cossacks, in the lectures he delivered to a private circle in 1895‑96, published in 1897 in Chernivtsi under the title Besidy pro chasy kozats'ki na Ukrayini (Talks about the Cossack Times in the Ukraine).104 These lectures, which may be regarded as a kind of synthesis of his work, are most valuable for an understanding of Antonovych's interpretation of history. In his introduction Antonovych explained why he chose the Cossack period as the central theme for his lectures. In this period, according to him, "The basic idea which expressed the will of the people, manifested itself best of all." He considered that every nation had in its history a central idea which it embraced because of conditions — geographical, cultural, and others — under which it lived. This central idea had manifested itself in the Great Russian nation in the principle of authority of the state power, which the people honored so much that they renounced their personal liberties. Through absolutism, the Great Russians were able to organize a power­ful state and to conquer other nations. The Poles, according to Antonovych, embraced the principle of democratic aristocracy, while the Ukrainians devoted themselves to the ideal of government by assembly — a principle of the broadest democracy and recognition of the individual rights of all citizens.

 p181  This latter principle is the most difficult to realize in life. It can be achieved only when

the masses of the people are at a high level of culture and are convinced of the goodness and value of this idea, and when they are ready to make sacrifices in order that it might be realized. When the level of culture is low and society interests are dominated by the personal gain of individuals and classes, democracy cannot develop or flourish. We find evidence of this in the brightest period of the Cossack Ukraine — the time of Khmelnytsky — when in spite of the most auspicious historical circumstances the central ideal of the Ukrainian people could not be realized because of lack of culture and perseverance. . . . The tragic fate of Ukrainian history has its origin in this, that the Ukrainian people never succeeded in creating a high standard of civilization or strong self-discipline, since those who came to be its leaders lacked the culture necessary for such leader­ship.

Antonovych interprets the entire Ukrainian history in the light of cultural and political immaturity of the Ukrainian people. He is a severe judge of Khmelnytsky. "If we consider," he writes, "what power the people gave to him and how badly he used it, we must admit his political ineptitude." Denying him any political ability, Antonovych does not blame Khmelnytsky for his failure. "He raised the banner of the revolution," he writes, "at a time when the people had the chance to throw off their chains. Yet he did not know what to do next." Therefore the great Cossack movement under the leader­ship of Khmelnytsky was led to ruin. "Having liberated themselves from what was evil, the people failed to build what they needed, or to express what they desired. At times their injustices became palpable, but no clear ideal ever emerged."

The figure of Mazepa is painted by Antonovych in glowing colors.

He was the only real political figure in the seventeenth century and a fervent and sincere patriot. Yet he disregarded the democratic ideals of the people and did not seek their friendship, while trying to attract the Cossack elders in order to create a strong, privileged caste which would support him in his struggle against the Muscovite government. He intended to organize the Ukraine  p182 according to the pattern of the neighboring states, where he saw monarchies supported by aristocracies. . . .

Therefore Mazepa's chief aim was to create such an aristocracy in the Ukraine. He was convinced that only then would the Ukraine be able to achieve autonomy.

Yet it was here, according to Antonovych, that Mazepa made his worst mistake. "His main fault was," he wrote, "that he ignored the interests of the people, or perhaps he did not understand them and dreamt of the Ukraine as a state ruled by an aristocracy. If Mazepa had not been blinded by this idea the people would have supported him.

Antonovych's main conclusions are rather pessimistic; in his last remarks he talks of a "national revival," meaning by this an ethnic nationality group as the only means to give voice to Ukrainian ideas, and he consoles his readers by citing the example of the Irish, who even though they lost their language, did not lose their nationality.

The importance of Antonovych's studies for Ukrainian historiography lies not in his conclusions or in any general views on Ukrainian history, but in his analysis of segments of that history. He prepared the small bricks out of which the later structure of Ukrainian historical science was built. In 1863 the first volume of Part III of Arkhiv Yugo-Zapadnoi Rossii containing the documents of the Cossack Ukraine (1500‑1648) appeared, edited by Antonovych who also wrote an introductory study "O pro­is­khozh­denii kozachestva" (The Origin of the Cossack Host). Influenced by Kostomarov's ideas of the social system of the ancient Rus′ expressed in Osnova, Antonovych regards the Cossack as a new form of the old social viche (assembly) system. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, according to Antonovych, "a communal social order arose from the native element, which was given the foreign name "Cossacks" taken from the Tatars. Their princes assumed the special title of Hetman . . . and in their internal organization the Cossacks represented the tradition of the Slav communities by submitting themselves to judgment by the assembly which was called the Rada."

This view, called phantastic by Hrushevsky, was later abandoned  p183 by Antonovych who in his Besidy pro kozats'ki chasy considered the Cossack organization to be a military order, although based on the principle of the "assembly."

Further volumes of Arkhiv were: O pro­is­khozh­denii shlyakhetskikh rodov v Yugo-Zapadnoi Rossii (The Origin of the Gentry Families in Southwest Russia), 1867; Poslednie vremena kozachestva na pravom beregu Dnepra po aktam 1679‑1716 g. (Last Period of the Cossacks on the Right-Bank of the Dnieper According to Documents of 1679‑1716), a most valuable monograph on the movement of S. Paliy, and other Cossack Chieftains in the Right-Bank Ukraine; O gorodakh v Yugo-Zapadnoi Rossii po aktam 1432‑1798 g. (The Towns of South-West Russia According to Documents of 1432‑1798), 1870; O krest'yanakh v Yugo-Zapadnoi Rossii po aktam 1700‑1798 (The Peasants of South-West Russia According to Documents of 1700‑1798), 1870; Ob Unii i sostoyanii Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi s poloviny XVII do kontsa XVIII v. (The Church Union and the Condition of the Orthodox Church from the Middle of the XVII to the End of the XVIII Century), 1871; O gaidamachestve (The Haydamak Movement), 1876;105 O mnimom krest'yanskom vozstanii na Volyni v 1789 g. (The Alleged Peasant Uprising in Volynia in 1789), 1902.

Antonovych was also the author of the following monographs:

1. "Ocherki istorii Velikago Knyazhestva Litovskago do poloviny XV v." (Sketches of the History of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania up to the Middle of the XV Century) in Kievskaya Universitetskiya Izvestiya, 1877‑78.

2. "O koldovstve v Yugo-Zapadnoi Rossii po aktam XVI‑XVIII vv." (Witchcraft in Southwestern Rus′ According to Documents of XVI‑XVIII Centuries) in Chubynsky's Trudy, vol. I, p2, 1877; a Ukrainian translation appeared in Lviv in 1905 entitled Chary na Ukrayini.

3. "Kiev, ego sud'ba i znachenie v XIV‑XVI st." (Kiev, Its Fate and Significance in the XIV‑XVI Centuries), Kievskaya Starina, 1882, I.

 p184  4. "Umanskii sotnik Ivan Gonta" (The Uman Captain, Ivan Gonta), Kievskaya Starina, 1882, XI.106

5. "Pany Khodyki, vorotily kievskago samoupravleniya v XVI‑XVII vv.," Kievskaya Starina, 1882, II.

All of them (with the exception of the one on Gonta) were reprinted in the collection Monografii po istorii Zapadnoi i Yugo-Zapadnoi Rossii (Monographs of the History of Western and Southwestern Russia), Kiev, 1885.

Antonovych was the editor of Sbornik materialov dlya istori­cheskoi topografii Kieva i ego okrestnostei (Collection of Materials for the Historical Topography of Kiev and Its Surroundings), Kiev, 1874; Sbornik letopisei, otnosyashchikhsya k istorii Yuzhnoi i Zapadnoi Rossii (A Collection of Chronicles Relating to the History of Southern and Western Russia), Kiev, 1888; Memuary otnosyashchiesya k istorii Yuzhnoi Rusi (Memoirs Relating to the History of Southern Rus′), 2 vols., Kiev, 1890‑96, printed earlier in Kievskaya Starina; "Dnevnik Stanislava Osvetsima" (The Diary of Stanisław Oświęcim), Kievskaya Starina, 1882, I‑II, V‑VI, IX‑XII; "Zapiski Karla Khoetskago" (Notes by Karol Chojecki), Kievskaya Starina, 1883, I, III, XI‑XII. Antonovych was also responsible for the historical part of Istoricheskiya pesni malorusskago naroda (The Historical Songs of the Little Russian People), Kiev, 1874‑75.

Besides scientific works Antonovych also wrote popular historical studies. To this category belong his biographies of the Hetmans Konashevych (Sahaydachnyi), Yuriy Khmelnytsky, Vyhovsky, Teterya, Bryukhovetsky, Khanenko, and P. Doroshenko, published in Istoricheskie deyatelei Yugo-Zapadnoi Rossii (Historical Personages of Southwestern Russia), Kiev, 1884, which is an album of the Hetmans with biographies, published at the expense of Vasyl' Tarnovsky (the biography of Bohdan Khmelnytsky in this selection is by O. Levytsky). One of the best examples of Antonovych's popular writings is his Lektsii po geologii i istorii Kieva (Lectures on Geology and History of Kiev), Kiev, 1897,  p185 which he originally delivered together with the geologist, Professor P. Armashevsky.

Not infrequently Antonovych took part in discussions on Ukrainian national and social problems. His voice was always calm and his attitude objective. In a similar vein he wrote his article in defense of the Ukrainian language (Kievskaya Starina, 1899) written on the occasion of the ban on the use of Ukrainian during the Archeological Congress in Kiev in 1899. His famous review article on Sienkiewicz's novel Ogniem i mieczem (With Fire and Sword) is of great interest, showing his tendentiousness in the description of Ukrainian life: "Pols'ko‑russkiya otnosheniya XVII v. v sovremennoi pol'skoi prizme" (Polish-Rus′ Relations of the XVII Century from a Contemporary Polish Point of View) Kievskaya Starina, 1885, V. A Ukrainian translation appeared in Lviv, in 1902 and in Vienna in 1915.107

As early as 1870, when he lectured in the Kiev Society of Nestor the Chronicler on Ukrainian burial mounds, Antonovych began to work on the prehistoric archeology of the Ukraine. As time went on he devoted more and more of his time to archeological studies, often taking part in expeditions. Antonovych may therefore be regarded as one of the founders of Ukrainian archeology. In the last years of his life Antonovych found in archeology a refuge from current problems which, as may be seen from the "Lectures on the Cossack Times," had a depressing influence upon him. The following archeological studies by Antonovych deserve to be mentioned: "Arkheologicheskiya nakhodki i raskopki v Kieve i Kievskoi gubernii v 1876" (The Archeological Findings and Discoveries in Kiev and the Province of Kiev in 1876), Chteniya obshchestva Nestora Letopistsa, 1877, vol. I; Raskopki v zemle drevlyan (Excavations in the Land of the Drevlyane), St. Petersburg, 1893; Arkheologi­cheskaya karta Kievskoi gubernii (The Archeological Map of the Province of Kiev), Moscow, 1895; Arkheologi­cheskaya karta Volynskoi gubernii (The Archeological Map of the Volynian Province),  p186 Moscow, 1902; Opisanie monet i medalei, khranyashchikhsya v Numizmaticheskom muzee universiteta sv. Vladimira (Description of Coins and Medals Preserved in the Numismatic Museum of the University of St. Vladimir), Kiev, 1896.

From among Antonovych's students there rose an entire school of famous historians who devoted themselves to the analysis of the history of certain regions of the Ukraine and Byelorussia or of separate periods of Ukrainian history. D. Bahaliy, P. Holubovsky, N. Molchanovsky, M. Hrushevsky, I. Lynnychenko, M. Dovnar-Zapol'sky, V. Lyaskoronsky, P. Ivanov, O. Andriyashev, V. Danylevych, O. Hrushevsky and several other scholars were among them. They all helped to advance the scientific exploration of Ukrainian history.


V. Domanytsky, "Volodymyr Antonovych," Nova Hromada, Kiev, 1906, IX; S. Tomashivsky, "Volodymyr Antonovych," Literaturno-Naukovyi Vistnyk, 1906, and separately, Lviv, 1907; V. Lyaskoronsky, "V. B. Antonovych," Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniya, 1908, VI; M. Dovnar-Zapol'sky, "Istoricheskie vzglyady V. B. Antonovicha," Chteniya Nestora, v. XIX, Kiev, 1909; I. Steshenko, "Ukrayins'ki shestydesyatnyky," Zapysky Ukrayin­s'koho Naukovoho Tovarystva v Kyyevi, 1909, vol. II; I. Steshenko, "Antonovych yak suspil'nyi diyach," Zapysky Ukrayin­s'koho Naukovoho Tovarystva v Kyyevi, 1909, vol. III; M. Hrushevsky, "Volodymyr Antonovych. Osnovni ideyi yoho tvorchosty i diyal'nosty," Zapysky Ukrayin­s'koho Naukovoho Tovarystva, v. III, Kiev, 1909; H. Pavlutsky, "Antonovych yak arkheoloh," ibid.; A. Loboda, "Pratsi Antonovycha po etnohrafiyi ta literaturi," ibid.; A. Efimenko, "Literaturnye sily provintsii (V. B. Antonovych)," Yuzhnaya Rus′, v. II, St. Petersburg, 1905; F. Matushevsky, V. B. Antonovych v svitli avtobiohrafiyi ta dannykh istoriyi, Kiev, 1909; S. Yefremov, "Pered sudom vlasnoyi sovisty. Hromads'ka i politychna robota V. B. Antonovycha," Zapysky Istorychno-Filolohichnoho Viddilu VUAN, v. V, Kiev, 1924; L. Dobrovol'sky, "Pratsya V. B. Antonovycha na nyvi istorychnoyi heohrafiyi," ibid., v. IX, Kiev, 1926; M. Hrushevsky,  p187 sotsiyal'no‑natsional'nykh kontseptsiy Antonovycha," Ukrayina, 1928, V; O. Hermayze, "V. B. Antonovych v ukrayins'kiy istoriohrafiyi," Ukrayina, 1928, V; M. Korduba, "Zvyazky Antonovycha z halychanamy," Ukrayina, 1928, V; Materiyaly dlya biohrafiyi V. B. Antonovycha. Zibrav ta zredahuvav D. I. Bahaliy, Kiev, 1929; O. Lototsky, "Postati ukrayin­s'koho hromadyanstva 90‑kh rokiv. V. B. Antonovych," Storinky mynuloho, v. I, Warsaw, 1932; V. B. Antonovych, Tvory, v. I, VUAN, Kiev, 1932, contains bibliography of Antonovych's works compiled by M. Tkachenko; D. Dorošenko, "Prof. V. Antonovyč, "panslavismus" a rakouská policie," Časopis Národního Musea, 1933, sv. 3‑4; Arkhiv Mykhayla Drahomanova, v. I, Warsaw, 1938; F. Slyusarenko, "Numizmatychni pratsi V. B. Antonovycha," Pratsi Ukrayin­s'koho Istorychno-Filolohichnoho Tovarystva v Prazi, v. II, Prague, 1939, and separately, Prague, 1938; D. Doroshenko, Volodymyr Antonovych, Prague, 1942; B. Krupnytsky, "Trends in Modern Ukrainian Historiography," The Ukrainian Quarterly, vol. VI, no. 4, 1950.

The Author's or the Editor's Notes:

99 Count Tadeusz Czacki, a well-known Polish scholar and educator, active in the Right-Bank Ukraine at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

[decorative delimiter]

100 See: J. Talko-Hryncewicz, Szlachta ukraińska, Materyaly antropologiczno-archeologiczne, wyd. Akad. Umiejętności w Krakowie, 1897, v. XI.

[decorative delimiter]

101 He wrote a few studies treating Ukrainian ethnography and geography; the most known are his Opowiadania i Krajobrazy (Stories and Geographical Essays), two volumes, Vilno, 1856.

[decorative delimiter]

102 See Antonovych's autobiographical notes: Literaturno-Naukovyi Vistnyk, 1908, VII‑IX; Ukrayina, 1924, I‑II; V. Antonovych, Tvory, vol. I, Kiev, 1932.

See also B. Poznansky's memoirs in Ukrainskaya Zhizń, 1913; and K. Mikhal'chuk's memoirs in Ukrainskaya Zhizń, 1914.

[decorative delimiter]

103 This characteristic of Antonovych's work was also mentioned by M. Hrushevsky: "Very seldom, and then only in a light, almost imperceptible manner, did he (Antonovych) mention in a special scholar­ly study some broad conclusions of a social-political or national character. He rather hinted at such conclusions, which could be understood only by the attentive sympathetic reader. Very often he showed no key to the ideological background of his study . . . Historian-philosopher, greatly inclined to synthesis and schematization, he did not like to take people into the laboratory of his thoughts, presenting them instead with a ready and a possibly simplified picture of a certain epoch, or of a certain complicated historical or social process." (Zapysky Ukrayin­s'koho Naukovoho Tovarystva v Kyyivi, v. III).

[decorative delimiter]

104 The author preferred the title Vyklady (Lectures). The second publication of this work appeared in 1912 in Kolomyya, entitled Korotka istoriya Kozachchyny (A Short History of the Cossack Host).

[decorative delimiter]

105 Ukrainian translation, ibid., vol. XIX, Lviv, 1897.

[decorative delimiter]

106 Ukrainian translation, ibid., vol. XIX.

[decorative delimiter]

107 A few of the Antonovych articles of journalistic character were reprinted in Volume I of his Tvory (Works), published by the All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev, 1932.

[image ALT: Valid HTML 4.01.]

Page updated: 3 Jul 22