Short URL for this page:
The suppression of the Ukrainian printed word by the Russian government in the 1870's not only obstructed the development of Ukrainian literature, but also that of historiography. This was true in spite of the fact that the official ban on Ukrainian publications did not include historical documents, as was clearly stated in the Ukaz issued by the Tsar in 1876. No prohibition was placed on studies in Ukrainian history so long as they were written in Russian and within the limits of the general censorship rules. Even more serious than the tsarist ban, however, was the reaction within Ukrainian society, which set in as a result of the prohibitions and repressions, restrained the development of the Ukrainian national movement, lowered the level of political thought, thus weakening national consciousness and depriving the study of the Ukrainian past of any clear guiding ideas.
Before the 1860's, the Ukrainian national movement was sustained almost exclusively by the efforts of the Ukrainian gentry, who were descendants of the Cossack elders, and who represented the strivings of their class in their preservation of the old traditions of Ukrainian statehood and by the creation of an organization p249 with a definite political program, like the Brotherhood of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. At the beginning of the 1860's the character of the Ukrainian national movement changed. Although still headed by representatives of the gentry, who also gave financial support for Ukrainian publications and institutions, the Ukrainian movement under the influence of Russian radicals and cosmopolites began to include ever wider strata of society and to assume the character of an intellectual and democratic credo. However, despite the criticism and partial negation of the old traditions which this new attitude demanded, [. . .] the new Ukrainian movement, inspired not only by the poems of Shevchenko, but also by the ideas of the Russian radicals and Populists, failed to create a clear political platform adapted to all the specific needs of Ukrainian life.150
The Ukrainian Osnova was, in its social and political program, merely a "South Russian" variant of Russian democratic liberalism, p250 and Ukrainian Khlopomany (Peasant Lovers) or Khokhlomany151 (Ukrainian Lovers) with their national costumes, Sunday schools, distribution of leaflets in the market squares, and their services as teachers and village scribes resemble the Russians' "going to the people." Very soon the more active and devoted Ukrainian democratic Populists (D. Lyzohub, D. Kybal'chych, V. Debahoriy-Mokriyevych, Ya. Stefanovych, all belonging to the Ukrainian gentry by birth) joined the ranks of the Russian social revolutionary fighters, regarding the Ukrainian national interests as secondary and hoping that these national interests would be safeguarded by social reform on an all‑Russian scale, for which they worked. To them the ethnographic characteristics of the Ukrainian people, their local traditions152 and language were superficial and trivial, and to regard them as important in any way was tantamount to subscribing to harmful and reactionary nationalism. For those who were less radical, Populism was often limited to the use of national costumes and language, the singing and recording of folksongs — mere superficial attitudinizing.
The time of the Osnova did not therefore produce any political or national program which would satisfy the practical needs of life, such as city self-government, zemstvos on the left bank of the Dnieper and in the South Ukraine, new courts, universal military training and the development of railroads and industry. Most of the so‑called "Ukrainophiles" (the term came into use at that time), although brought up on the poetry of Shevchenko and the monographs of Kostomarov, regarded the Ukrainian movement as a local version of the Russian progressive movement and thought that it might be satisfied with Ukrainian literature for domestic use, the introduction of the Ukrainian language in schools, and freedom to perform Ukrainian concerts and plays.
p251 The reduction of the Ukrainian cause to such narrow limits and its separation from the political, social, and economic needs of the country led to this anomaly: that when local self-government was instituted in the Ukraine with representatives of all classes participating in it, Ukrainian national interests played no role in town or village governments, confining themselves to formal declarations on the need for teaching Ukrainian in schools, and to such occasional events as the anniversary celebration for Kvitka-Osnov'yanenko by the Kharkiv zemstvo and the decoration of Shevchenko's grave by the Poltava zemstvo.
Therefore, since the Ukrainian movement was not regarded by wide circles of people as connected with real needs of life, but became identified by many either with rebellious sedition (in the Right-Bank Ukraine with the Haydamak movement) or with reactionary nationalism, or even with foreign inspired separatism, it is no wonder that it lacked the necessary internal power of resistance to oppression by a government which saw a great danger in it as a separatist movement, in spite of assurances by men like Kostomarov who attempted to describe it as innocent and loyal.
After the repressions of the 1870's, even in Kiev itself, in the Stara Hromada, which for a decade had acted as headquarters of the Ukrainian movement, the prevailing mood was that of retreat. The same Hromada which, in 1876, sent Drahomanov abroad so that he could create there a free Ukrainian center for the written word, soon came to consider his activity as harmful, attempted to persuade him to give it up and finally disowned him. Drahomanov's attempts to persuade the Kievans to transfer Ukrainian publishing activities abroad were unsuccessful since they had given up their belief in active struggle against the regime and, instead, supported the theory of the purposelessness of struggle, of compromise, and finally the idea of "apolitical culture." Abandoned by his former supporters and aided only sporadically by his friends (S. Podolynsky, Ya. Shulhyn, and later M. Kovalevsky), Drahomanov attempted to print in Geneva political (Hromada), literary (the works of Shevchenko and P. p252 Myrnyi), and scholarly (Political Songs) publications, but his efforts received little encouragement and made scarcely any impression on the Ukraine, which could not be reached by his efforts. Drahomanov tried to find support among the liberal zemtsi (members of the Zemstvo), mainly among those in Chernihiv Province, because they showed Ukrainophile tendencies, and he published a liberal periodical Vol'noe Slovo (The Free Word). Later Drahomanov drafted his program of the All‑Russian federation "Vil'na Spilka" (Free Union), and finally concentrated his attention on Galicia, where possibilities for definite political action in a Ukrainian spirit existed.
During the 1880's there was a lull in the Dnieper Ukraine, during which very little under the heading of historical synthesis was written. Attention was concentrated on collection of materials and on study of Ukrainian ethnography, history, archeology, language, which might later furnish the historians with the necessary sources for a great task. This work often had no Ukrainophile coloring, but was carried on by local institutions [. . .] occasionally receiving official government support where it was directed against Polish elements, as for example in the Right-Bank Ukraine.
Those who attempted to write wider syntheses were either such as Kulish, who wrote in the spirit of the "reunification of Rus′," or like the Kiev Archeographic Commission, which followed the official governmental historiography and whose head Yuzefovych was at one time both the inspirer of the 1876 ban and, in 1888, the initiator of the project to erect the monument to Bohdan Khmelnytsky as the alleged champion of the "one‑and-indivisible Russia."
The lull which threatened to extinguish the Ukrainian movement, was interrupted only by a few heroic efforts of individuals like O. Konysky, B. Hrinchenko, and T. Zin'kivsky, who each separately propagated the idea expressed earlier by Drahomanov and Kulish. They all pleaded that the center of the Ukrainian movement be temporarily transferred to Galicia [. . .] This idea finally saved the Ukrainian renaissance from the decay into which p253 it was falling, being reduced to a type of certain "Provençalism" as expressed, for instance, by the Ukrainian theater, whose tours in Moscow and St. Petersburg were a great success.
The movement toward Galicia began when Ukrainian authors started to print their works in Galician publications (Svit, Zorya, Dilo). Later purely Ukrainian periodicals were established, Zorya having become one of them; Pravda (1888‑1894) was of special importance. This cooperation with Galician publications free from censorship, connections with Galicia where active Ukrainian social and political life was in existence, spiritual contact with Drahomanov and his activities by way of Galician publications — all this resulted in the formation of several groups153 which tried to push the Ukrainian cause forward, away from the dead point of apolitical Ukrainophilism. These groups later amalgamated in one all‑Ukrainian organization and actually initiated the future Ukrainian movement. Their greatest value was in introducing a political trend to the Ukrainian cause, although they (at least some of them) still associated this cause with the dissemination of social-revolutionary ideas of the Russian pattern.
It is natural that those people, who were not appeased with the weak role of the Ukrainian movement as just a South-Russian particularism and tried to lead it to the wider road of a national political movement, should turn to history in an attempt to revive old traditions and find a relation between their aspirations and the past, where they found support. They were not satisfied with the Ukrainian historiography of the 1880's and early 1890's which, though storing rich material, shunned any approach toward a synthesis, and avoided national Ukrainian problems and interest. Therefore attempts were made in Galicia to publish in Ukrainian translation earlier works by Ukrainian p254 historians written in Russian. Rus'ka Istorychna Biblioteka, edited by Oleksander Barvinsky in Ternopil, published translations of Kostomarov and other authors made by Ukrainians from the Dnieper Ukraine. Galician papers and journals also began to devote considerable space to Ukrainian history. The need for a synthesis in historiography was evident in the contest held by Kievskaya Starina for an outline of Ukrainian history, and in the publication of Antonovych's Besidy (Vyklady) pro kozats'ki chasy na Ukrayini (Lectures on the Cossack Period in the Ukraine).
Even earlier, just the beginning of the 90's, the idea was formulated in Kiev of founding in Galicia a Ukrainian institution of learning which, free from censorship, would be best able to serve the interests of Ukrainian scholarship and, in particular, of Ukrainian history, the history of its language and literature. In 1892 this idea was realized by the transformation into an institution of learning of the Shevchenko Society (Tovarystvo imeny Shevchenka), founded in 1873 in Lviv upon the initiative of a group of Poltavians154 with the support of the landowner Elizabeth Myloradovych.155
Ukrainian historiography in Galicia had not at that time reached an advanced state of development, although there were attempts to organize historical research on local antiquity. The outstanding pioneers of national revival in Galicia, Ivan Vahylevych (1811‑1866) and Yakiv Holovatsky (1814‑1888), although they had an interest in history, worked primarily in the fields of linguistics and ethnography. Yakiv Holovatsky, who in 1867 emigrated to Russia, became the head of the Archeographic Commission in Vilno. He was the author of Materialy k istorii Galichiny s 1772 goda (Materials for the History of Galicia after 1772), 1886, and several articles on the history of the Stavropigian Brotherhood in Lviv.
The first professional Galician historian was Denys Zubrytsky p255 (1777‑1862) who came from a gentry family in the Syanok region. Brought up in the spirit of old‑fashioned literary and social views and influenced very strongly by the Russian historian M. Pogodin, Zubrytsky embraced the idea of "the oneness of Russian people," and regarded the Ukrainian language as a "language of cowherds." His own works were written in German, Polish, or in yazychiye156 which he thought was literary Russian. They include: Die griechisch-katholische Stauropigialkirche in Lemberg und das mit ihr vereinigte Institut, Lviv 1830; Historyczne badania o drukarniach rusko-slawiańskich Galicyi (A Historical Study of Rus′-Slavic Print Houses in Galicia), Lviv, 1936 (translated into Russian in Zhurnal Min. Nar. Prosv., 1838); Rys historyi narodu ruskiego (An Outline of the History of the Rus′ People), Lviv, 1836 (Bodyansky published the Russian translation of this work in Chteniya under the title "Kritiko-istoricheskaya povest' vremennykh let Chervonnoi ili Galitskoi Rusi," Moscow, 1845); Kronika miasta Lwowa (The Chronicle of the City of Lviv), Lviv, 1844; Istoriya Galitsko-russkago knyazhestva (The History of the Halych‑Rus′ Principality), 3 vols., Lviv, 1852‑55; "Galitskaya Rus′ v XVI veke" (The Galician Rus′ in the XVI Century), Chteniya, Moscow, 1862.
Most of Zubrytsky's works are based on archival sources and are, therefore, still of some value today.
Another self-taught Galician historian and archeologist was the Reverend Antin Petrushevych (1821‑1900). He was the author of many articles and treatises on the history of ancient Rus′, and in particular on Galician history, though his works have the character of compilations of source material. Petrushevych possessed a sharp critical faculty, but as Franko pointed out, "he knew little of scientific methods and of the logic of composition and was prone to stop at every detail and start polemics over the minutest problems." His chief work is Svodnaya galitsko-russkaya letopis' 1500‑1772 (The Composite Galician‑Rus′ Chronicle 1500‑1772), Lviv, 1872‑74, and for 1772‑1840, Lviv, 1889. This is a rather mechanical compilation of a tremendous amount of p256 material on Galician history, as though it were a continuation of Zubrytsky's work. Other studies by Petrushevych are devoted to local history, particularly to towns and churches of Galicia. "Zhytie Iova Knyaginetskago, osnovatelya skita Manyavskago" (The Life of Iov Knyahynetsky, the Founder of the Manyavsky Hermitage), Zorya galitskaya yako al'bum, Lviv, 1860; Kto byli bolokhovskie knyaz'ya? (Who were the Princes of Bolokhovo?), Lviv, 1871; Istoricheskoe izvestie o tserkvi sv. Panteleimona bliz Galicha (Historical Reports about the Church of St. Panteleimon near Halych), Lviv, 1881; Byvshaya Radovetskaya episkopiya na Bukovine (The Former Radivtsi Bishopric in Bukovina), Lviv, 1885; Kratkoe istoricheskoe izvestie khristianstva v Prikarpatskikh stranakh (A Short Historical Account of Christianity in the Sub‑Carpathian Regions), Lviv, 1882. Petrushevych played a prominent part in proving the forgery of the Czech "epic poems," "Sud Lyubushi" (The Trial of Lyubusha) and others — cf. his articles in Slovo, 1877‑78.
As early as 1848 a famous "Congress of Rus′ Scholars" in Lviv founded the Galician‑Rus′ Matytsya (Halyts'ko‑Rus'ka Matytsya) whose aims were to encourage research on Galicia and in history. This society published several volumes of Galitskii Istoricheskii Sbornik (Galician Historical Symposium) containing mostly documents as well as studies by Petrushevych. In 1865‑66 it published two volumes of Naukovyi Sbornik (A Scientific Symposium) which also contained historical material. In 1885‑86 the Literaturnyi Sbornik was revived; two volumes were published, the first containing studies by Petrushevych and Sharanevych. As the Nauchno-Literaturnyi Sbornik it continued to be published in 1896‑97 and in 1901‑1908, but apart from articles by Petrushevych it did not contain any significant historical studies.
The Stavropigian Institute (Stavropigiysky Institut) in Lviv which followed in the footsteps of the famous Stavropigian Brotherhood dating from the second half of the fifteenth century, was another institution whose purpose was to cultivate the p257 growth of literature and scholarship in Galicia. Having come under the domination of the so‑called Moscowphiles, who also controlled the Galician‑Rus′ Matytsya and the Ukrainian National institution Narodnyi Dom (People's Home), this society did not develop any striking or wide activities, all its publications having been written in yazychiye and bearing the stamp of lifeless scholasticism. One of its publications, Vremennik (Annals), began to appear in 1863, printing articles by Petrushevych, Holovatsky and their circle on archeological-ecclesiastical themes. In 1887 the Stavropigian Institute published a Yubileynoe izdanie v pamyat' 300‑letnyago osnovaniya L'vovskago Stavropigiiskago Bratstva (The Jubilee Edition in Memory of the 300th Anniversary of the Foundation of the Stavropigian Brotherhood in Lviv) commemorating its tercentenary. Besides the study by Sharanevych, this de luxe edition contained documents on the history of the Stavropigian Brotherhood. Additional collection of documents were: Diplomata statutaria a Patriarchis Orientalibus confraternitati Stauropigianae Leopoliensi ab a. 1586 ad a. 1593 data, Lviv, 1894 (edited by I. Krystynyatsky); Monumenta confraternitatis Stauropigianae Leopoliensis (1518‑1600), Lviv, 1895 (edited by V. Mil'kovych); Zbirnyk L'vivs'koyi Stavropigiyi, Mynule i suchasne (A Symposium of the Lviv Stavropigiya, Past and Present), vol. I, Lviv, 1920 (edited by K. Studynsky).
The People's Home (Narodnyi Dom), founded in 1848 in Lviv, began to publish a small paper Vestnik Narodnago Doma (Messenger of the Narodnyi Dom) which for the first two decades printed, almost exclusively, studies by Petrushevych, the most valuable of them being concerned with the history of the town of Halych and the archeological discoveries made in its vicinity. Later Pylyp Svystunº published his articles there on Galician history. In 1914 Vestnik Narodnago Doma ceased publication, but in 1921 it reappeared printed in Russian, under the editorship of Yul. Yavorsky.
Among the old generation of Galician scholars, the only real historian was Isidor Sharanevych (1829‑1901). Born near Halych, he graduated from Lviv University and in 1871 became professor p258 there of the History of Galician Territory and of the Volodymyr Principality, and later professor of Austrian history. Despite having strong Moscowphile tendencies, Sharanevych was tolerant toward the Ukrainian cultural movement. He lectured in Polish and most of his works were written in Polish or in German. Most of them were devoted to the history of Galicia: Starodavnyi L'vov (Ancient Lviv), Lviv, 1860; Istoriya Galitsko-Volodimirskoi Rusi (A History of the Galician-Volodymyrian Rus′), Lviv, 1863, which according to Hrushevsky was for a long time a most valuable textbook; Rys wewnętrznych stosunków Galicyi Wschodniej w drugiej połowie XXV wieku (An Outline of the Internal Conditions of Eastern Galicia in the Second Half of the XV Century), Lviv, 1869; Die kritische Blicke in die Geschichte der Karpathenvölker im Alterthume und im Mittelalter, Lviv, 1871; Die Hypatios-Chronik als Quellen-Beitrag zur österreichischen Geschichte, Lviv, 1872; Rzut oka na beneficia Kościola ruskiego za czasów Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (A Glimpse of the Benefits of the Rus′ Church Under the Polish Republic), Lviv, 1875; Patryarchat Wschodni wobec kościola ruskiego i Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Lviv, 1879; O latopisach i kronikach ruskich i rusko-litewskich XV i XVI w. (Rus′ and Rus′-Lithuanian Chronicles of the XV and XVI Centuries), Lviv, 1882; Stavropigiiskaya tserkov' Uspeniya v L'vove (The Stavropigian Church in Lviv), Lviv, 1888; Nikolai Krasovsky, stareishina Stavropigiiskago Bratstva vo L'vove, (Mykola Krasovsky, the Elder of the Stavropigian Brotherhood in Lviv), Lviv, 1895; Iosif Shumlyansky, episkop L'vovskii ot 1667 do 1708 g. (Yosyf Shumlyansky, Bishop of Lviv from 1667 to 1708), Lviv, 1896; Tserkovnya Uniya na Rusi i vliyanie eya na zmenu polozheniya mirskogo russkago dukhovenstva (The Church Union in Rus′ and Its Influence on the Social Conditions of the Rus′ Clergy), Lviv, 1897. He was also the author of several studies on the archeology of Galicia.
Apart from Sharanevych the following popularizers of history in Galicia deserve to be mentioned: Vasyl' Il'nytsky (1823‑1895), p259 the author of several popular studies on the history of the Galician-Volodymyrian Principality; Yuliyan Tselevych, author of the Istoriya Skyta Manyavs'koho and several studies of the Galician opryshky; Omelyan Partytsky, the author of the Starynna istoriya Halychyny (Ancient History of Galicia), I (from the VII century B.C. to 110 A.D.), Lviv, 1894; Kornylo Zaklynsky, a talented historian, the author of the Rus'ki litopysy i litopystsi XVII st. (Rus′ Chronicles and Chroniclers in the XVII Century); Litopys' Khmelnytska (The Khmelnytsky Chronicle); Znosyny tsisarya Rudolfa II z kozakamy (Relations of the Emperor Rudolf II with the Cossacks), Zorya, 1880; and Znosyny kozakiv z shvedamy i z knyazem Yuriyem Rakochi (Relations between the Cossacks and the Swedes and Prince Yuriy Rakoczy), Lviv, 1883; Pylyp Swystun,º (1844‑1916), the author of Prikarpatskaya Rus′ pod vladeniem Austrii (The Carpathian Rus′ under Austrian Rule), Part I, 1772‑1848, Part II, 1850‑1895, Lviv, 1895‑96; and several articles in the Vestnik Narodnago Doma, of which he was the editor for a certain time; Volodymyr Mil'kovych, professor at Chernivtsi University, and F. Labensky.
The following works were devoted to the history of the Church Union:
Anton Dobryansky, Istoriya episkopov soedinennykh eparkhii Peremyshl'skoi, Samborskoi i Sanotskoi ot naidavneishikh vremen do 1794, po istochnikam sochinennaya (A History of the Bishops of the United Bishoprics of Peremyshl, Sambir, and Sanok from the Earliest Times Up to 1794, Based on the Sources), Lviv, 1894;
Yuliyan Pelesh, professor at Lviv University and later a Bishop: Geschichte der Union der ruthenischen Kirche mit Rom von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, Wien, 2 vols., 1878‑80.157
The prominent Galician Populist, Oleksander Barvinsky, who as early as the 1870's began to print translations of Kostomarov's p260 articles (mainly his biographies of prominent historical figures), became the publisher in 1886 of the Rus'ka Istorychna Biblioteka (Rus′ Library), which aimed to print translations of the most important works dealing with Ukrainian history. This series included the following books:
Vol. I, S. Kachala, Korotka istoriya Rusy (A Short History of Rus′).
Vol. II, M. Kostomarov, Dvi rus'ki narodnosti (Two Russian Nationalities); Federatyvni osnovy (Federal Principles); Rysy narodnyoyi ukrayins'koyi istoriyi (An Outline of the History of the Ukrainian People).
Vol. III, D. Ilovaysky, Knyazhyi period istoriyi Ukrayiny-Rusy (The Princely Period in the History of the Ukraine‑Rus′), a chapter from the book by the Russian historian.
Vol. V, M. Smirnov, M. Dashkevych, I. Sharanevych, studies of Galicia.
Vol. VII, I. Lynnychenko, Suspil'ni verstvy Halyts'koyi Rusy XIV‑XV v. (Social Classes of the Galician Rus′ in the XIV and XV Centuries).
Vol. VIII, V. Antonovych and O. Levytsky, on church relations in the Ukraine in the XVI‑XVIII Centuries.
Vol. IX‑XII, M. Kostomarov, Bohdan Khmelnytsky.
Vol. XIII, M. Kostomarov, Het'manuvannya Vyhovs'koho i Yuriya Khmelnyts'koho (The Hetmanate of Vyhovsky and Yuriy Khmelnytsky).
Vol. XIV‑XVI, M. Kostomarov, Ruyina (Ruin).
Vol. XVII‑XVIII, M. Kostomarov, Mazepa i mazepyntsi (Mazepa and the Mazepians); V. Antonovych, Ostanni chasy kozachyny na pravim berezi Dnipra (The Last Days of the Cossack Movement on the Right-Bank of the Dnieper).
Vol. XIX, Studies of the popular movements in the Ukraine in the XVIII century: Yu. Tselevych on opryshky, V. Antonovych on Gonta, and O. Yefymenko, Turbayivs'ka katastrofa.
Vol. XXI‑XXII, I. Novytsky, Vladimirsky-Budanov, Antonovych, studies of the Ukrainian peasantry.
p261 Vol. XXIII‑XXIV, D. Bahaliy and V. Antonovych, studies of Ukrainian towns and townsfolk.
Beginning with vol. XVI the Rus'ka Istorychna Biblioteka was published by the Shevchenko Scientific Society. The series ceased publication in 1904. Most of the translations were made by Ukrainians from the Dnieper Ukraine; the translations in the first volumes are reasonably good, but in some of the later ones they are very bad. The omission of documentation and sources deprives the first fifteen volumes of any scholarly value.
The Shevchenko Society, founded in 1873 to support Ukrainian belles-lettres and learning, during the first two decades of its existence had supported only a few literary publications. Not until after its reorganization in 1892 did the Scientific Shevchenko Society devote itself fully to scholarship. Its Zapysky (Proceedings) began to appear in 1892 as the main publication of the Society. Quite a few authors from the Dnieper Ukraine promised to contribute their works to the Zapysky and they actually did so in the first issues (1892‑93): M. Hrushevsky, "Hromads'kyi rukh na Ukrayini-Rusi v XIII vitsi" (The Social Movement in the Ukraine in the XIII Century), ZNTSH, v. 1; O. Konysky; Panachovnyi, "Starodavni hrets'ki kolonii bospors'ki v mezhakh teperishnyoyi Kubans'koyi oblasti" (Ancient Greek Bosporus Colonies on the Territory of Today's Kuban Region), ZNTSH, v. II; O. Chernyakhivsky; T. Ryl'sky; P. Ivanov, "Kartka z istoriyi Volyni na pochatku XVI viku" (A Note from Volynian History of the Early XIV Century), ZNTSH, v. II. There were also articles by Galicians. Cooperation from the Dnieper Ukraine authors did not develop sufficiently and during the first years of its publication the Zapysky relied chiefly on Galician contributors. However, at that time there came to Lviv a young scholar from the Dnieper Ukraine who not only reorganized the Shevchenko Scientific Society but helped to make it the center of Ukrainian scholarship, and in particular of historiography. He was Mykhaylo Hrushevsky, who in 1894 was appointed professor of History of Eastern Europe "with particular emphasis on the history of the Ukraine" at Lviv University.
p262 Mykhaylo Hrushevsky (1866‑1934) was born in Kholm and came from the family of a well-known educator-administrator who belonged to an old clerical family in the Kiev Province. He was a graduate of Kiev University where he had been a student of Antonovych. Even in Kiev he had attracted attention by the following historical studies: "Yuzhnorusskie gospodarskie zamki v polovine XVI veka" (The Grand Duke's South Russian Castles in the Middle of the XVI Century), Kiev. Universitetskiya Izvestiya, 1890, No. 2; "Volynskii vopros 1077‑1102" (The Volynian Problem of 1077‑1102), Kievskaya Starina, 1891, v. XXXIII; Ocherk istorii Kievskoi zemli ot smerti Yaroslava do kontsa XIV v. (A Survey of the History of the Kievan Land from the Death of Yaroslav to the End of the XIV Century), Kiev, 1891; Barskoe starostvo (The Bar Starostvo), Kiev, 1894.
Antonovych, who was himself offered the chair at Lviv, proposed that Hrushevsky take it instead. Once in Lviv, Hrushevsky became the president of the Shevchenko Scientific Society (1897) and it was due to his organizing ability that this society became the leading learned institution devoted to Ukrainian studies not only in Galicia, but in the entire Ukraine. The Society was divided into Sections, and the Zapysky were made the organ of the Historical and Philosophical Section. Later an Archeographic Commission was formed and special publications were established for various fields of Ukrainian historiography. For sixteen years (1897‑1913) Hrushevsky stood at the helm of the Shevchenko Scientific Society and during that time the Society gained wide recognition in the world of scholarship, published hundreds of volumes in Ukrainian, built up a large library and museum, gathered around it scores of Ukrainian scholars, and, in the words of Hrushevsky himself, "created a Ukrainian scholarship for all the world of culture to see." While lecturing at Lviv University Hrushevsky trained several scholars, who later made great contributions to Ukrainian historiography. Among them the two most prominent were S. Tomashivsky and I. Krypyakevych.
After the first revolution in Russia (1905), an opportunity p263 arose for starting Ukrainian publications and scholarly institutions afresh in the Dnieper Ukraine, and Hrushevsky transferred to Kiev the Literaturno-Naukovyi Vistnyk (The Literary and Scientific Herald), which since 1898 had appeared under his editorship in Lviv.158 Now he paid frequent visits to Kiev, held public lectures there on the history of the Ukraine, and played a prominent role in Ukrainian public life. Finally he became the chairman of the Ukrayins'ke Naukove Tovarystvo (Ukrainian Scientific Society), founded in Kiev in 1907. He organized its scholarly activities and set up the publication of Zapysky (Proceedings) of the Society. From this time Hrushevsky gradually transferred his activities to the Dnieper Ukraine. In 1913 certain disagreements resulted in Hrushevsky's resignation from active work in the Lviv Scientific Society and he concentrated his work in the Kiev Ukrainian Scientific Society, under whose auspices he started a new historical quarterly Ukrayina in 1914.
At the outbreak of the First World War Hrushevsky was in Galicia. Subsequently he left for Vienna and Italy, returning to Kiev in the fall of 1914. There Hrushevsky was arrested and, after three months in prison, banished, at first to Simbirsk and later to Kazan. In 1916 he was allowed to move to Moscow, and after the Revolution of 1917 he returned to the Ukraine. Here he became the president of the Tsentral'na Rada159 (Central Council), joined the extremist social-revolutionary trend, and broke with his former political adherents and collaborators. After the fall of the Tsentral'na Rada in April 1918, Hrushevsky withdrew from the wide political scene and in 1919 he emigrated abroad.160
Hrushevsky's scholarly work was interrupted by the beginning p264 of the Revolution and his present works have little in common with his past scholarly studies which brought him fame and merited respect.
Hrushevsky's magnum opus is his Istoriya Ukrayiny-Rusy (History of the Ukraine‑Rus′) in eight volumes.161 All his other numerous works have the character of either preparatory studies or treatises on certain periods or subjects of Ukrainian history, which seemed to have been prepared for inclusion in his History. [. . .]
The most meritorious value of Hrushevsky's work for Ukrainian historiography lies in the fact that he established and presented to the scholarly world a well-based scheme of the history of the Ukrainian people throughout the whole territory they inhabited and throughout their historical development, and that he proved the continuity and integrity of this process. Hrushevsky followed this scheme in his History of Ukraine‑Rus′ and in his lectures, while he expounded its theory in his article "Zvychayna skhema 'russkoyi' istoriyi i sprava ratsional'noho ukladu istoriyi skhidnoho slovyanstva" (The Traditional Scheme of "Russian" History and the Problem of a Rational Organization of the History of the Eastern Slavs), Sbornik po slavyanovedeniyu, published by the Imperial Academy of Sciences, I, St. Petersburg, 1904.162
The traditional scheme of "Russian" history, in Hrushevsky's opinion, is an old scheme which has its beginnings in the historiographic scheme of the Moscow scribes; and its basis lies in the genealogical idea — the genealogy of the Moscow dynasty. With the beginning of scientific historiography in Russia, the scheme served as a basis for the history of the Russian State. The same arrangement was adopted in the science of the history of the Russian law. This consisted of three divisions: the Law of the Kievan State, of Muscovy, and of the empire.
Thus through tradition and long usage, people have become p265 accustomed to this scheme, which, as Hrushevsky stressed, is full of irrationalities. He pointed out that the Kievan State, its laws and culture, were the creation of one nationality — the Ukrainian — while the Vladimir-Moscow State was the creation of another nationality — the Great Russian. The Kievan Period did not pass into the Vladimir-Moscow Period, but into the Galician-Volynian Period of the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries and, later, to the Lithuanian-Polish of the fourteenth-sixteenth centuries. By accepting this traditional Russian scheme one obscures the origin of the Great Russian and Ukrainian peoples. The old viewpoint persists that the history of the Ukraine, of the "Little Russian" people, begins only with the fourteenth-fifteenth centuries, and in general the history of the Ukraine appears in piecemeal fashion as membra disjecta. The history of the Byelorussian people is lost altogether. The attempt to include the Grand Principality of Lithuania in the "history of Russia" is also inept, since that principality was a highly heterogeneous body. The Lithuanian element (usually ignored by Russian historians) played an important part in it. The Grand Principality of Lithuania was more closely connected with the Byelorussian people who had a decisive influence on it, while the Ukrainian lands, although they formed a part of it, did not have such comparable influence.
Generally speaking, what is referred to as Russian history involves a combination of several concepts or rather a competition between several concepts:
1. The history of the Russian State (Formation and growth of the state organization and the territory involved).
2. The history of Russia, that is, the history of events that took place on its territory.
3. The history of the "Rus′ nationalities."
4. The history of the Great Russian people (in terms of state organization and cultural life).
Each of these concepts, logically pursued, might become a justifiable subject for scientific presentation, but by combining these various concepts, none receives a complete and logical evaluation. There could be no "all‑Russian" history (obshcherusskaya), p266 just as there is no "all‑Russian" nationality. There may be a history of all the "Russian nationalities," if one wishes to call it so, or a history of the East Slavs. "It seems to me," Hrushevsky says, "that the most rational approach to the entire problem would be to present the history of each nationality separately in accordance with its development, from the beginning until the present." On the basis of this approach, Hrushevsky, himself, worked on the history of the Ukrainian nationality. He stated that the history of the Great Russian nationality is almost ready. All that is needed is to rearrange its beginning (in place of the usual Ukrainian-Kievan attachment) and to cleanse its pages of the various episodes lifted out of the histories of the Ukraine and Byelorussia. The history of Byelorussia should be compiled in the same way.163
In his second article published in the Sbornik statei po slavyanovedeniyu, entitled "Spirni pytannya staro-rus'koyi etnohrafiyi" (Controversial Issues of the Old Rus′ ethnography), Hrushevsky discussed another equally important problem — tracing the groups of East Slavic tribes which gave origin to the Ukrainian people. V. Antonovych, beginning with the late 1870's, had made attempts to determine the distribution of the East Slavic tribes on the basis of archeological discoveries of types of burial customs. He and his followers tried, on the basis of those studies, to locate the territories of certain tribes. Yet the study by the Russian archeologist, A. Spitsyn, "Razselenie drevne-russkikh plemen po arkheologicheskim dannym" (The Settlement of the Old Russian Tribes According to Archeological Data), Zhurn. Min. Nar. Prosv., 1899, VIII, written in order to determine ethnographic relations on the basis of archeological evidence, disclosed serious gaps, incompleteness and obscurity on these questions.
A new attempt to solve this problem was made by A. Shakhmatov.164 p267 He divided the East Slavic tribes into the following groups: 1) Southern, between Prypyat' and the Dnieper; 2) Middle tribes, living on the Left-Bank of the Dnieper, and the Drehovychi on the Right-Bank; 3) Northern — the Kryvychi and the Novgorod Slavs.
The Ukrainians, according to Shakhmatov, had their origin in the southern group, which beginning with the fourteenth century also colonized Left-Bank lands. The Byelorussians stem from the western part of the middle group, which later found itself separated from it by inclusion in the Grand Principality of Lithuania. The Great Russians are the descendants of the eastern part of the middle group and of the northern group which later united in the Muscovite State.
Hrushevsky, while accepting the general outline of this distribution worked out by Shakhmatov, tended to disagree on the position of the tribe of Siveryane, whom he placed within the Right-Bank part of the southern group. Hrushevsky supported his views by evidence of cultural and political ties and by common ethnographic features, for instance, the burial customs.165
Hrushevsky's studies of the earlier periods of Ukrainian history and of the Lithuanian Period are scattered in the first volumes of the Zapysky of the Shevchenko Scientific Society.166 They formed an introduction and a preparation to a great work planned by M. Hrushevsky at the end of the 90's — a systematic scholarly survey of the whole history of the Ukraine. The state of Ukrainian historiography in the 1890's, especially the valuable contributions p268 of Antonovych and his pupils, made it possible to attempt a synthesis of Ukrainian history, a summation of studies of older generations of scholars. This was also demanded by the increased pace of the Ukrainian national revival which hastened the spirit of the Ukrainians.
Ever since the works of Bantysh-Kamensky and M. Markevych, the Ukrainians had been left without such synthetic works. The studies of Maksymovych, Kostomarov, and Kulish showed that it was not possible to write such a work until all the documentary evidence had been assembled and appraised, until certain parts and periods of Ukrainian history would be clarified. Several decades after publication, the best works of Kostomarov and Kulish lost much of their value and, in the eyes of the modern historian, are not far removed from good historical fiction or publicist pamphlets. This happened due to old methods and old‑fashioned views applied to the tasks of historical science.
At the beginning of the 1880's Stefan Kachala, a political figure in Galicia, attempted to write a comprehensive study of Ukrainian history, Istoriya Rusy (The History of Rus′), vol. I of the Rus'ka Istorychna Biblioteka, 1886; it was also published in Russian in the Kievskaya Starina, as well as in Polish. The result was only a popular work, not a scholarly one.
M. Hrushevsky who came to Galicia as the first professor of Ukrainian history, equipped with the excellent training he had received from Antonovych, with great erudition and a fundamental scientific method, felt the need for such synthesis all the more. Indeed, he believed it was his patriotic duty to produce a comprehensive history of the Ukraine.167 To this task he devoted all his great talent and knowledge. In 1898 the first volume of his p269 Istoriya Ukrayini‑Rusy appeared in Lviv marking, as he himself wrote in the preface, the 100th anniversary of the rebirth of Ukrainian literature,168 which at that time was celebrated in all centers of Ukrainian life. As his chief aim, Hrushevsky, like the members of the Brotherhood of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, proclaimed the quest for historical truth. In the introduction to the first volume, while reviewing the sad past of the Ukraine full of tragic struggle for the free life among the family of peoples, Hrushevsky wrote: "Our history shows us a sad picture, sadder than the histories of other peoples, but a nation which has not lost faith in its destiny must have the courage to look at the unadorned truth of history in order to find strength in it, not despair. 'Learn the truth and the truth will make you free.' "
It was the intention of the author to assemble and scrutinize all available sources on the history of the Ukrainian people, and to show and clarify the political, social, economic, and cultural aspects of the historical process embracing the Ukrainian people of the entire territory inhabited by them. The historical outline itself is preceded by a survey of the history of the territory now occupied by Ukrainians, based on archeological studies. Hrushevsky's concept of history does not give priority to the people's strivings to found their own state, but to their desire to secure the maximum social and economic benefits. A representative of Ukrainian Populism — which, in denying the significance of the Ukrainian state tradition, failed to create a political ideal of its own, believing instead that the emancipation of the Ukrainian people could be fulfilled within the Russian or Austrian states — Hrushevsky attached little value in his own works to the strivings of the Ukrainian Princes and Hetmans to create a Ukrainian state and even condemned them for their disregard of the social and economic interests of the common people, while demanding sacrifices from them. The key to understanding of Hrushevsky's concept of history may be found in one of his later articles, in which he tried to justify not only his interpretation of history, but also his participation in current history, and to explain p270 away the excesses of the social revolution as "the inevitable barbarity of life." In his opinion even the destruction of one's own state may be justified if it does not satisfy the social-economic needs of the people, such as the socialization of land and the "Soviet" structure of government.
"I was brought up," writes Hrushevsky, "in the strict tradition of Ukrainian radical Populism, which originated with the Brotherhood of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, and firmly believed that, in the conflict between the people and the government, blame attaches to the government since the interests of the working people are the highest good, and if they are flouted the people are free to change their social system."169 Guided by this basic tenet, Hrushevsky evaluated the movement of the Ukrainian masses against the Poles in the same light as the opposition of the common people to their princes, as in the case of the "Tatar people" against King Danylo in the thirteenth century or against the Hetmans during the time of Bohdan Khmelnytsky in 1649‑50. In this respect Hrushevsky shares the views of Ukrainian historians of Kostomarov's times:
Modern Ukrainian historiography and all who had anything to do with Ukrainian history, under the influence of those ideas, eagerly followed any manifestations of the people's activity, irrespective of whether there were conflicts with their own rulers at the time, or a struggle against a foreign state. The favorite topics for Ukrainian historiography were: the strife between the Princes and the Assembly (viche) in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the social movements in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the peasant uprisings in the Western Ukraine (Mukha's) in the fifteenth century, the beginning of the mass movement in the Ukraine in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the uprising of Petryk and other movements in the Hetman State, the Haydamak movement and similar manifestations of protest in Galicia, the peasants' attempts to regain their lost liberties, as for example the Kiev Cossack movement in 1855 . . . there were only fragmentary facts preserved in historical documents and passed p271 on to us, which we tried to connect up with analogous, but more fully conscious, social revolutionary movements in Western Europe.170
The inclination to see in the movement of the Ukrainian masses in the past a development parallel to the activities of Western European social-revolutionaries became evident in Hrushevsky's thoughts only after the 1917 Revolution. Yet it is important to stress the absence of the idea of the national state in Hrushevsky's History of the Ukraine‑Rus′ and in his general courses on Ukrainian history.
The first volume of the Istoriya Ukrainy-Rusy (2nd edition, Lviv, 1904, 3rd edition, Kiev, 1913) contains a survey of prehistoric life in the Ukraine from the time of the appearance of the original home of the Slavs, and the colonization of Ukrainian territory by non‑Slavic tribes. It also gives a survey of Slavic colonization of this territory, describes the culture and life of the Ukrainian tribes, the formation of the Ukrainian‑Rus′ state and its life as far as the middle of the eleventh century. Apart from numerous critical notes, the volume contains in an appendix a short treatise on the Primary Chronicle and the Norman theory. This volume was well received by scholars thanks to the richness of the scholarly material used and the preciseness of the author's critical approach. When in 1906 a German translation of it appeared (Geschichte des ukrainischen Volkes, Band I, Leipzig), the Polish scholar, Alexander Brückner, wrote as follows:
Hrushevsky's work is testimony to the excellent scholarship and versatility of this Ukrainian historian. He has completely mastered the vast literature of his subject — archeological as well as philological and historical — most of all the Russian sources which have so far been sealed off from the Western scholar. The author astonishes us with his knowledge of the Russian and German sources, some of them not widely known. Coupled with this fabulous erudition is his acute, independent judgment and his well-controlled method — all of an exceptionally high quality.171
p272 The second volume appeared in 1899 (second edition, 1905), dealing with the history of the Kievan State itself and of the separate lands up to the middle of the thirteenth century. The third volume, published in 1900 (second edition 1905), was devoted to the Galician-Volynian state, the Dnieper Ukraine under Tatar domination until the beginning of the fourteenth century, and to a survey of the cultural life in the Ukraine up to the time of the Tatars, with a very valuable survey of the literature of the time. The fourth volume came out in 1902 (2nd edition in 1907 in Kiev), dealing with the history of Ukrainian lands under Lithuanian-Polish rule until 1569. The fifth volume appeared in 1905 and contained an outline of the social, political, ecclesiastical systems and of life in the Ukraine in the fourteenth-seventeenth centuries. The sixth volume (1907) is devoted to a survey of economic conditions in the Ukraine in the fourteenth-seventeenth centuries, as well as to the national-cultural and religious life of that period. Beginning with vol. VII the History began to appear in Kiev, bearing the subtitle "Istoriya Ukrayins'koyi Kozachchyny" (The History of the Ukrainian Cossacks). The seventh volume contains a history of the Cossack Ukraine up to 1625, Kiev, 1909. The first part of vol. VIII (Kiev, 1913) is devoted to a history of the Cossacks, 1626‑38;172 the second part (Moscow, 1916) covers the period 1638‑1648; part III (Moscow, 1918) the period 1648‑1650.173 In 1922 Hrushevsky republished the second part of vol. VIII in Vienna, adding to it a very valuable survey of historiography pertaining to the times of Khmelnytsky, and the third part, entitled: Khmelnychchyna v p273 roztsviti (The Flowering of the Period of Khmelnytsky), Vienna, 1922.174
Ukrainian scholarly reviewers were unanimous in calling the History a monumental work, pointing out that it comprises an inexhaustible wealth of material dealing with Ukrainian history throughout the first half of the seventeenth century, and that no one conducting research for that period can dispense with it. In the opinion of one of the critics,175
The History of the Ukraine by Hrushevsky is undoubtedly the most striking example of Ukrainian scholarship. It is an expression of a highly developed national consciousness and marked a step forward in our cultural and national-political development. [. . .]
We stated already that the History could not have a great influence on the development of Ukrainian political ideas because of the author's underestimation of the importance of Ukrainian statehood in the historical process. The tremendous importance of this work lies in the systematic summation of information, its scholarly examination and analysis. This vast store of knowledge about the history of the Ukraine is coordinated around the focus of one central thought: the continuity of the historical evolution of the Ukrainian people on the territory settled in the dawn of the history of humanity. Hrushevsky's work is a huge encyclopedia comprising all the results of previous studies of Ukrainian historiography.176
In response to the needs of the public, Hrushevsky also wrote a short survey of Ukrainian history, Ocherk istorii ukrainskago naroda (A Survey of the History of the Ukrainian People), St. p274 Petersburg, 1904,177 2nd edition 1906,178 3rd edition 1911, which was based on lectures delivered by him in 1903 at the Russian School of Higher Learning for Social Sciences in Paris.
This work, which offered a complete survey of Ukrainian history, was also the first of its kind and quickly gained recognition. The very fact that this book appeared in Russia and that, in contrast to Russian official and unofficial historiography, it portrayed Ukrainian history as an uninterrupted process beginning in Kiev in the ninth century and continuing throughout the centuries, despite the loss of Ukrainian statehood and the partition of the Ukrainian territory among the neighboring states, was a significant event in the Ukrainian national movement which just then, at the beginning of the new century, had gathered fresh impetus. A few years later this concise outline was republished in a somewhat more popular form, with hundreds of illustrations: Ilyustrovana istoriya Ukrayiny (An Illustrated History of the Ukraine), Kiev 1911,179 later editions, Kiev, 1913, 1917, and Vienna, 1921.180 Simultaneously a Russian edition appeared in St. Petersburg in 1912.181
An even shorter version of it appeared in Pro stari chasy na Ukrayini (Ancient Times in the Ukraine), St. Petersburg, 1907. Hrushevsky was also the author of the ample outline, History of the Ukrainian People, included in the first volume of the Encyclopedia Ukrainskii narod v ego proshlom i nastoyashchem (Ukrainian People: Its Past and Present), St. Petersburg, 1914. The most interesting part of this outline is that on Ukrainian historiography, entitled "Razvitie ukrainskikh izuchenii v XIX veke" (The Development of Ukrainian Studies in the XIX Century).182
p275 In the same category with popular literature, having a profound influence on the reading public, is Hrushevsky's Kultur'no‑natsional'nyi rukh na Ukrayini v XVI‑XVII v. (The Cultural and National Movement in the Ukraine in the XVI and XVII Centuries), Kiev-Lviv, 1912,183 2nd edition, Vienna, 1920.184
From the time Hrushevsky became the president of the Shevchenko Scientific Society, the development of scholarly studies there began on a large scale, as well as in the milieu around it, and Ukrainian historiography in particular took on a new lease on life. With the first years of his professorship, Hrushevsky began bringing out a school of his students who, under his guidance, worked on certain problems and periods of Ukrainian history and published their material and works in various publications of the Shevchenko Scientific Society. They worked mostly on the history of the Lithuanian-Polish and Cossack periods.
Bohdan Barvinsky, the son of the well known Galician patriot, Oleksander Barvinsky, devoted himself chiefly to the period of the Galician-Volynian State and the Lithuanian‑Rus′ Principality. His main works are: Z'yizd knyazya Danyla z uhors'kim korolem Beloyu IV v Preshburzi 1250 r. (Conference of the Prince Danylo with the Hungarian King Bela the Fourth, in Preshburg, 1250), Lviv, 1901; "Preshburzky z'yizd v spravi spadshchyny po Babenbergakh" (Preshburg Conference on the Question of the Babenberg Inheritance), ZNTSH, v. LII, and separately, Lviv, 1903; Zhygmont Keystutovych, Velykyi knyaz' Lytovs'ko‑rus'ky p276 (Zhygmont Keystutovych, the Lithuanian‑Rus′ Grand Prince (1432‑1440)), Zhovkva, 1905; Istorychni prychyny. Rozvidky, zamitky, i materialy do istoriyi Ukrayiny-Rusy (Contributions to History — Studies, Notes and Material for the History of the Ukraine‑Rus′), v. 1, Zhovkva, 1908, v. II, Lviv, 1909; "Kil'ka dokumentiv i zamitok do chasiv vel. knyaziv Svydryhayla i Zhygmonta Keystutovycha" (A Few Documents and Notations on the Time of the Grand Princes Svydryhaylo and Zhygmont Keystutovych), ZNTSH, v. CXV.
Evhen Barvinsky is the author of the following works: "Nabih kozakiv na Ochakiv v 1534" (The Cossack Raid on Ochakiv in 1534), ZNTSH, XVIII; "Prychynky do istoriyi znosyn tsisarya Rudol'fa II i papy Klymenta VIII z kozakamy v 1593‑94" (A Contribution to the History of Relations of the Emperor Rudolf II and Pope Clement VIII with the Cossacks, in 1593‑94), ZNTSH, X.
Stepan Rudnytsky185 the author of "Kozats'ko‑pol's'ka viyna 1625 r." (The Cossack War Against the Poles in 1625), ZNTSH, XVII; "Ukrayins'ki kozaky v 1630‑35 rokakh" (The Ukrainian Cossacks in 1630‑35), ZNTSH, XXXII; "Nove dzherelo do istoriyi Khmelnychchyny" (A New Source for the History of the Period of Khmelnytsky), ibid., XXIII‑XXIV.
Omelian Terletsky was the author of "Politychni podiyi na Halyts'kiy Rusi v r. 1340 po smerty Boleslava-Yuriya II" (Political Events in the Galician Rus′ in 1340 after the Death of Boleslav-Yuryi II), ZNTSH, XII; "Kozaky na Biliy Rusi v 1654‑1656" (The Cossacks in Byelorussia in 1654‑1656), ZNTSH, XIV.
Oleh Tselevych is the author of "Uchast' kozakiv v Smolenskiy viyni 1633‑34 r." (Cossack Participation in the Smolensk War of 1633‑34), ZNTSH, XXVIII; "Prychynky do znosyn Petra Doroshenka z Pol'shcheyu v 1670‑72 r." (A Contribution to the Relations Between Petro Doroshenko and the Poles in 1670‑72), ibid., XXV.
Stefan Tomashivsky (1875‑1930) was one of the most promising of Hrushevsky's students and his close collaborator. He was p277 later appointed a dozent in Austrian history at Lviv University, devoting himself chiefly to the periods of Khmelnytsky and Mazepa. The most important of his works are:
"Materiyaly do istoriyi Khmelnychchyny" (Materials for the History of the Period of Khmelnytsky), ZNTSH, XIV (1896); [. . .] "Samuil Kazymyr Kushevych, l'vivs'kyi raytsya, i yoho zapysna knyha" (Samuil Kazymyr Kushevych, the Councillor of Lviv, and His Record Book), ibid., XV (1896); "Narodni rukhy v Halyts'kiy Rusi 1648 r." (Popular Movements in the Galician Rus′ in 1648), ibid., XXIII‑XXIV, and separately, Lviv 1898; "Pershyi zazyvnyi lyst Khmelnyts'koho" (The First Letter of Appeal by Khmelnytsky), ibid.; Z istoriyi halyts'ko‑rus'kykh soymykiv (The History of the Galician Rus′ Assemblies), Lviv, 1898; Pohlyad na stan lyudnosty L'vivs'koyi zemli v seredyni XVII v. (A View of the Conditions of the Population of Lviv Province in the Middle of the XVII Century), Lviv, 1901; "Slovats'kyi vyslannyk na Ukrayini 1708‑1709" (A Slovak Envoy in the Ukraine, 1708‑1709), Naukovyi Zbirnyk, prysvyachenyi Prof. M. Hrushevs'komu, Lviv, 1906; "Volodymyr Antonovych", Literaturno-Naukovyi Vistnyk, 1906, and separately; "Iz zapysok Karolintsiv pro 1708‑1709 r." (The Carolite Notes on the Events of 1708‑1709), ZNTSH, XCII, 1909, and separately; Prychynky do istoriyi Mazepynshchyny (A Contribution to the History of the Period of Mazepa), Lviv, 1910; "Uhorshchyna i Pol'shcha na pochatku XVIII stolittya" (Hungary and Poland at the Beginning of the XVIII Century), ZNTSH, LXXXIII‑LXXXVI, 1908, and separately, Lviv, 1909; Pershyi pokhid B. Khmelnyts'koho v Halychynu (Khmelnytsky's First Campaign in Galicia), Lviv, 1914.
In the latter study Tomashivsky related the events of 1648 from the rout of the Polish armies at Pylyavtsi to Khmelnytsky's retreat from Zamostya, and concluded that after the destruction of the Polish army near Pylyavtsi the Cossack campaign was merely a token in character and was also carried on in order to satisfy the claims of their Tatar allies from the lands outside the Cossack territory. In the opinion of Tomashivsky, Khmelnytsky's main purpose was to intimidate the Poles and to make them p278 submissive; Khmelnytsky's withdrawal from Zamostya, after the completion of his main purpose, was dictated by the danger of a winter campaign and the need to organize the vast country which, after the victories of 1648, found itself under Cossack rule. Tomashivsky was concerned with the history of 1649 in his "Odyn moment pid Zborovom 1649 r." (One Moment near Zboriv in 1649), Zbirnyk v chest' Franka, ZNTSH, vols. CXVII‑CXVIII, Lviv, 1914.
Tomashivsky's Ukrayins'ka istoriya, I, Starynni i seredni viky (Ukrainian History, I, Ancient Times and Middle Ages) appeared in Lviv in 1919186 and attempted to give a short survey of the political development of the Ukraine. According to the author, the following three historical currents are manifest in Ukrainian history: 1) the age‑old contrasts between the forest and steppe areas of the Ukraine — the defense of the plains against the nomads of the steppe and the colonization of the land — this struggle against the steppes passing through several stages including one that was dominated by the Cossacks; 2) the political and cultural contrast between the East and the West, which in the Ukraine assumed the form of a Polish-Ukrainian conflict; 3) the political, economic and cultural contrasts between the South and the North. "The steppe, Poland, and Muscovy — these form the triangle of the Ukrainian historical-political destiny . . . Understanding of the important ideas involved in this triangle helps to measure what was positive, creative and valuable in Ukrainian history and what was destructive and harmful. The conquest of land, the separation and the creation of a distinct cultural and national entity, finally the establishment of the state — these are the landmarks to guide the historians of the Ukraine." From this point of view Tomashivsky analyzed Ukrainian history up to the end of the fifteenth century.187
Myron Korduba (1876‑1948) also devoted himself chiefly to the study of the Khmelnytsky period. He is the author of: "Persha p279 derzhava slavyans'ka" (The First Slav State), ZNTSH, XIII; "Suspil'ni verstvy ta politychni partiyi v Halyts'kim knyazivstvi do polovyny XIII st." (Social Classes and Political Parties in the Galician Principality Up to the Middle of the Thirteenth Century), ibid., XXXI‑XXXII; "Proba avstriys'koho poserednytstva mizh Khmelnytskym i Pol'shcheyu" (Austrian Attempt to Mediate Between Khmelnytsky and Poland), ibid., LXXXIV; "Venetsiys'ke posol'stvo do Khmelnyts'koho, 1650" (A Venetian Envoy to Khmelnytsky in 1650), ibid., LXXVIII; "Borot'ba za pol's'kyi prestol po smerty Volodyslava IV" (The Struggle for the Polish Throne After the Death of Wladyslaw IV), introduction to the XII volume of Zherela do istoriyi Ukrainy‑Rusy, Lviv, 1912; "Moldavs'ko‑Pol's'ka hranytsya na Pokuttyu po smerty Stefana Velykoho" (The Moldavian-Polish Border in Pokutye After the Death of Stephen the Great), Naukovyi Zbirnyk, Lviv, 1906; "Mizh Zamostyem ta Zborovom (storinka znosyn Semyhorodu z Ukrayinoyu i Pol'shcheyu)" (Between Zamostya and Zboriv — Relations of Transylvania with the Ukraine and Poland), ZNTSH, CXXXIII.188
Vasyl' Herasymchuk wrote the following studies on the early post-Khmelnytsky period: "Vyhovsky i Yuryi Khmelnytsky," ZNTSH, vols. LIX‑LX; "Pered Chudnivs'koyu kampaniyeyu" (Before the Chudniv Campaign), Naukovyi Zbirnyk, Lviv, 1906; Vyhovsky i Hadyats'ka uniya (Vyhovsky and the Treaty of Hadyach), ZNTSH, LXXXVI, LXXXVII, LXXXVIII, LXXXIX; "Chudnivs'ka kampaniya 1660 r." (The Campaign of Chudniv 1660), ibid., CX, CXI, CXII, CXIII, CXIV, CXVI.
Denys Korenets' also worked on the Vyhovsky period: "Znosyny Ivana Vyhovs'koho z Pol'shcheyu v rr. 1657‑58" (The Relations of Ivan Vyhovsky to Poland in 1657‑58), ZNTSH, XXXVIII; "Povtsannya Martyna Pushkarya" (The Uprising of Martyn Pushkar), Naukovyi Zbirnyk, Lviv, 1906.
Ivan Dzhydzhora (1880‑1919) devoted himself almost exclusively to a history of the Hetman State in the eighteenth century: p280 "Z noviyshoyi ukrayins'koyi istoriohrafiyi (Ohlyad prats' O. Yefymenkovoyi)" (From the Recent Ukrainian Historiography — An Account of the Works by O. Yefymenko), ZNTSH, LXXI; "Materiyaly moskovs'koho Arkhiva Ministerstva Yustytsiyi do istoriyi Het'manshchyny" (The Materials of the Moscow Archives of the Ministry of Justice Concerning the History of the Hetman State), ibid., LXXVI; "Novi prychynky do istoriyi vidnosyn rosiys'koho pravytel'stva do Ukrainy v 1720‑1730" (New Light on the History of the Relation of the Russian Government to the Ukraine in 1720‑30), ibid., LXI; "Ukrayina v pershiy polovyni 1738 r." (The Ukraine in the First Half of 1738), ibid., LXIX; "Do istoriyi heneral'noyi viys'kovoyi kantselyariyi" (On the History of the General Military Chancellery), ibid., CVII; "Ekonomichna polityka rosiys'koho pravytel'stva suproty Ukrayiny v 1720‑30" (The Economic Policy of the Russian Government Towards the Ukraine in 1720‑30), ibid., LXXXXVIII,º CI, CIII, CV; "Reformy Malorosiys'koyi Kolegiyi na Ukrayini v 1722‑723 rokakh" (The Reforms of the Little Russian Collegium in the Ukraine in 1722‑23), Naukovyi Zbirnyk, Lviv, 1906.189 [. . .]
Ivan Krevetsky (1883‑1940), "Rus'ka sil's'ka militsiya na uhors'kiy hranytsi v Halychyni v 1848‑49 r." (Ruthenian Village Militia on the Hungarian Border in Galicia in 1848‑49), ZNTSH, LXIII, LXIV; "Halychyna v druhiy polovyni XVIII v., perehlyad novykh publikatsiy" (Galicia in the Second Half of the XVIII Century; a Review of New Publications), ibid., LXXXXI; "Sprava podilu Halychyny v 1846‑50 r." (The Division of Galicia in 1846‑50), ibid., LXXXXVI, LXXXXVII; "Tsutsylivs'ka tryvoha v 1848 r. (prychynky do ostannikh dniv panshchyny v Halychyni)" (The Tsutsyliv Alarm in 1848 — Material on the History of the Last Days of Serfdom in Galicia), Naukovyi Zbirnyk, Lviv, 1906; "Batalion rus'kykh hirs'kykh stril'tsiv 1849‑50" (A Battalion of the Ruthenian Mountaineer Sharpshooters), ZNTSH, CVII; "Sproby orhanizatsiyi rus'koyi natsional'noyi gvardiyi v Halychyni p281 1848‑49 r." (An Attempt to Organize the Ruthenian National Guard in Galicia in 1848‑49), ibid., CXIII; "Pid protektsiyu Velykoho kurfyursta (do polityky P. Doroshenka)" (Under the Protection of the Great Kurfürst — The Policy of P. Doroshenko), ibid., CXVII‑CXVIII.
Ivan Krypyakevych: "Materiyaly do istoriyi l'vivs'koyi torhovli" (Materials Relating to the History of Lviv Trade), ZNTSH, LXV; "Rusyny vlastyteli u L'vovi v pershiy polovyni XVI v." (Ruthenian Property Owners in Lviv in the First Half of the XVI Century), Naukovyi Zbirnyk, Lviv, 1906; "Rusyny u L'vovi v pershiy polovyni XVI v." (Ruthenians in Lviv in the First Half of the XVI Century), ZNTSH, LXXVII, LXXVIII, LXXIX; "Z diyal'nosti Posevina" (The Activities of Posevin), ibid., CXII; "Kozachchyna i Batoriyevi vol'nosti" (The Cossacks and the Privileges of Batory), introduction to vol. VIII of Zherela do istoriyi Ukrayiny-Rusy, Lviv, 1908; "Novi materiyaly do istoriyi Synodiv 1629" (New Material for the History of Synods, 1629), ZNTSH, CXVI, 1913; "Ukrayins'ki kozaky v evropeys'kykh politychnykh plyanakh 1620‑1630 rokiv" (Ukrainian Cossacks in European Political Plans of 1620‑1630), ibid., CXVII‑CXVIII; "Do kharakterystyky Ilyasha Karaimovycha" (The Characteristics of Ilyash Karaimovych), ibid., CXXII; "Z kozats'koyi sfragistyky" (The Cossack Sphragistics), ibid., CXXIII‑CXXIV; "Arkheohrafichna diyal'nist' M. Kostomarova" (The Archeographic Activity of M. Kostomarov), ibid., CXXVI‑CXXVII; "Serby v ukrayins'kim viys'ku (1650‑60)" (Serbians in the Ukrainian Army — 1650‑60), ibid., CXXIX; "Ukrayins'kyi derzhavni skarb za Bohdana Khmelnyts'koho" (The Ukrainian State Treasury at the Time of Bohdan Khmelnytsky), ibid., CXXX; "Uchytel' Bohdana Khmelnyts'koho (Andriy Gontsel' Mokrsky)" (Khmelnytsky's Teacher — Andriy Gontsel Mokrsky), ibid., CXXXIII.190
The history of the Church occupied the following scholars:
O. Sushko, "Predtecha tserkovnoyi uniyi 1596 (Benedykt Herbest)" p282 (The Precursor of the Church Union of 1596 — Benedykt Herbest), ZNTSH, LIII, LV, LXI; "Yesuity v Pol'shchi" (The Jesuits in Poland), ibid., LVII, LVIII.
Bohdan Buchynsky, "Studiyi do istoriyi tserkovnoyi Uniyi" (Studies of History of the Church Union), ZNTSH, LXXXV, LXXXVI, LXXXVIII, LXXXX.
Fedir Sribnyi, "Studiyi nad orhanizatsiyeyu l'vivs'koyi Stavropihiyi vid kintsya XVI do polovyny XVIII st." (Studies on the Organization of the Lviv Stavropigiya from the End of the XVI to the Middle of the XVIII Century), ZNTSH, CVIII, CXI, CXII, CXIV, CXV.
Mykola (Nicholas D.) Chubaty, "Zakhidna Ukrayina i Rym v XIII v. u yikh zmahannyakh do tserkovnoyi uniyi" (Western Ukraine and Rome in the XIII Century in Their Efforts to Achieve a Church Union), ibid., CXXIII‑CXXIV.191
Nearly all the above works had some of their origins in the historical seminar conducted by M. Hrushevsky or in the school of his scholarly followers, and were mostly based on archival materials, which the authors gathered from the Archives in Lviv, Kraków, Vienna, Warsaw, Kharkiv, Moscow, St. Petersburg. Therefore almost all these works present new and scholarly studies of material and sometimes very valuable conclusions.
Apart from those immediately connected with M. Hrushevsky and a circle of Galician scholars, there were some authors from the Dnieper Ukraine who published their articles in the Lviv Zapysky of the Shevchenko Scientific Society. Their cooperation extended beyond 1905, up to the date the Zapysky were banned in Russia.
To the above-mentioned group belonged: Olena Radakova, "Ukrayins'ki kozaky na Ladozhs'kim kanali" (Ukrainian Cossacks on the Ladoga Canal), ZNTSH, XII; Oleksander Lototsky (1870‑1939), the prominent Ukrainian public figure and author, "Soborni krylosy na Ukrayini ta Biliy Rusy v XV i XVI vv." (The Cathedral Choirs in the Ukraine and Byelorussia in the XV and the XVI Centuries), ibid., IX; "Suspil'ne p283 stanovyshche biloho (svits'koho) dukhovenstva na Ukrayini i Rosiyi v XVIII v." (The Social Position of the Clergy in the Ukraine and Russia in the XVIII Century), ibid., XXI;192 Vasyl' Domanytsky, (1877‑1911) one of the younger students of V. Antonovych, was the author of "Kozachchyna na perelomi XVII v. (1591‑1603)" (The Cossack Host at the Turn of the XVI and the beginning of the XVII Centuries (1591‑1603)), ibid., LX‑LXIV; "Prychynky do istoriyi povstannya Nalyvayka" (Notes on the History of Nalyvayko's Uprising), ibid., XL; "Chy bula reforma Batoriya?" (Was There a Batory Reform?), Naukovyi Zbirnyk, Lviv, 1906. Among later contributors to the Zapysky were the following scholars: Oleksander Hrushevsky, Vyacheslav Lypynsky, Mykola Vasylenko, Vadym Modzalevsky, Mykhaylo Slabchenko, Viktor Barvinsky, Mykhaylo Tyshkevych.
The Archeographic Commission of the Shevchenko Scientific Society began to publish a series of collections of historical materials and documents, entitled Zherela do istoriyi Ukrayiny-Rusy. [. . .] Vols. I‑III (1895‑1900), comprising the so‑called "Lyustratsiyi korolivshchyn v starostvakh Halyts'komu, Peremyshl's'komu, Syanots'komu, Kholms'komu, Belzs'komu i L'vivs'komu 1564‑1566 rokiv" (The Royal Estates Revisions of the Starostva of Halych, Peremyshl', Syanok, Kholm, Belz, and Lviv in 1564‑66), edited by M. Hrushevsky, who also wrote the prefaces: "Ekonomichnyi stan selyan na Podnistrov'yu halyts'kim v polovyni XVI v. na osnovi opysey korolivshchyn" (The Economic State of the Peasantry in the Dniester Areas of Galicia in the Middle of the XVI Century According to the Accounts of the Royal Estates); "Ekonomichnyi stan selyan v Peremyshl's'kim starostvi v polovyni XVI v." (The Economic State of the Peasantry in the Starostvo of Peremyshl in the Middle of the XVI Century); "Ekonomichnyi stan selyan v Syanots'kim starostvi v seredyni XVI v." (The Economic State of the Peasantry in the Starostvo of Syanok in the Middle of XVI Century); vols. IV‑VI (1898‑1901) contain Galician documents and Chronicles, 1648‑1657, with introductions p284 by S. Tomashivsky: "Z zhyttya halyts'ko-rus'kykh soymykiv 1648‑1649" (The History of the Galician Rus′ Assemblies 1648‑1649), and "Pohlyad na stan lyudnosty l'vivs'koyi zemli v seredyni XVII v." (The State of the Population of the Lands of Lviv in the Middle of the XVII Century); vol. VII (1903) contains "Lustrations" from 1570, with Hrushevsky's preface "Ekonomichne stanovyshche l'vivs'kykh selyan v seredyni XVI v." (The Economic Condition of the Lviv Peasantry in the Middle of the XVI Century); vol. VIII (1908), comprises materials of the history of the Cossacks up to 1630 (edited by Ivan Krypyakevych); vol. XII, materials concerning the history of the Cossacks — diplomatic documents from the period of Khmelnytsky (edited by M. Korduba); vol. XIII (published in Kiev, 1913), Diary of Yakiv Markovych 1735‑1740 (edited by V. Modzalevsky); and vol. XVI (1919), "Vatican Materials Concerning the History of the Ukraine — Reports of the Nuncios on the Ukraine 1648‑1657," edited by S. Tomashivsky.
The Bibliographical Notes in the Zapysky, which were discontinued after 1914, are most valuable. All new publications in the field of Ukrainian historiography, ethnography, archeology, and philology were reviewed there.
The importance of the publications by the Shevchenko Scientific Society in the development of Ukrainian historiography can be compared to that of Kievskaya Starina. Zapysky continued the fine tradition of the defunct Kievskaya Starina. Chief credit for the success of the Shevchenko Scientific Society must be given to M. Hrushevsky who was the editor of its Zapysky for twenty years.
I. Franko, "Stara Rus′," Literaturno-Naukovyi Vistnyk, 1901, "I. Sharanevych," ZNTSH, v. XLV.
Literature on the Shevchenko Scientific Society:
M. Hrushevsky, "Naukove Tovarystvo im. Shevchenka," Literaturno-Naukovyi Vistnyk, 1900, XII, No. 3; D. Doroshenko, "Naukove Tovarystvo im. Shevchenka," Ukrainskii Vestnik, 1906, p285 No. 4; D. Doroshenko, "Naukove Tovarystvo im. Shevchenka u L'vovi," Ukrayina, 1907, III; O. Hrushevsky, "Naukove Tovarystvo im. T. Shevchenka i ego izdaniya," Izvestiya Otd. Russk. yazyka i slovesnosti Imp. Akad. Nauk, 1911, III; V. Doroshenko, Naukove Tovarystvo im. Shevchenka u L'vovi (1873‑1892‑1912), Kiev‑Lviv, 1913; V. Hnatyuk, "Naukove Tovarystvo im. Shevchenka u L'vovi," Lviv, 1923; articles by the same author in Literaturno-Naukovyi Vistnyk, I‑VIII Lviv, 1925; Istoriya Naukovoho Tovarystva im. Shevchenka, New York-Munich, 1949; V. Doroshenko, Ohnyshche ukrayins'koyi nauky. Naukove Tovarystva imeny T. Shevchenka, New York-Philadelphia, 1951.
Literature on M. Hrushevsky:
Naukovyi Zbirnyk, prysvyachenyi Prof. M. Hrushevs'komu uchenykamy i prykhyl'nykamy, Lviv, 1906; V. Chepelyansky, "Velykyi uchenyi diyach Sobornoyi Ukrayiny," Svitlo, 1910, IV; V. Doroshenko, "M. S. Hrushevsky," Literaturno-Naukovyi Vistnyk, 1912, V; V. V. Herasymchuk, "Mykhaylo Hrushevsky, yak istoriohraf Ukrayiny," ZNTSH, v. CXXXIII, Lviv, 1922; Yuviley Akad. M. Hrushevs'koho, 1866‑1926, Kiev, 1927; "Prof. Michael Hruschewskyj. Sein Leben und sein Wirken," Beiträge zur Ukrainekunde hrsg. vom Ukrain. Wiss. Institut, issue 3, Berlin, 1935; D. Doroshenko, "M. Hrushewskij, 1866‑1934," Ost‑Europa, Berlin-Königsberg, 1935, issue 4; D. Dorošenko, "Mychajlo Hruševskyj," Časopis Národniho Musea, Prague, 1935, vol. I; D. Doroschenko, "Michael Hruschewskyj," Historisk Tidskrift, issue 1, Stockholm, 1935; B. Krupnytsky, "Die archäographische Tätigkeit M. Hruševśkyjs," Jahrbücher für Kultur und Geschichte der Slaven, Breslau, 1935, v. XI, issue 3/4; Jaroslav Bidlo, Michal Hruševśkyj, Prague, 1935; E. Borschak, "M. Hrushevskij," Le Monde Slave, Paris, 1935, I; A. Shulgin, "Mykhailo Hrushevsky (1866‑1934)," The Slavonic Review, vol. 14, London, 1935; O. Hötzsch, "Michael Hruševskyj," Zeitschrift für osteuropäische Geschichte, v. 9, Berlin, 1935; M. Korduba, "M. Hruschevsky, als Forscher und Organizator der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit," ibid., v. 9, Berlin, 1935; H. Koch, "Dem Andenken Mychajlo Hruševskyj's (29 September 1866–26 November 1934) gewidmet," p286 Jahrbücher für Kultur und Geschichte der Slaven, N. F., v. XI, Breslau, 1935, issue 1; O. Ohloblyn, "Mykhaylo Hrushevsky, (1866‑1934)," Ukrayins'kyi Vistnyk, Berlin, 1944, No. 31‑33, reprinted in Ukrayins'ka Trybuna, Munich, 1948, No. 21; G. W. Simpson, "Hrushevsky, a Historian of Ukraine," The Ukrainian Quarterly, vol. 1, 1944; (I. Borshchak), "Mykhaylo Hrushevsky," Soborna Ukrayina, Paris, 1947, No. 2; B. Krupnytsky, "Trends in Modern Ukrainian Historiography," The Ukrainian Quarterly, Vol. VI, No. 4, 1950; B. Krupnytsky, "M. Hrushevsky i yoho 'Istoriya Ukrayiny-Rusy,' " preface to vol. 1 of the new edition of Istoriya Ukrayiny-Rusy by M. Hrushevsky, New York, 1954.
Literature on S. Tomashivsky:
I. K–––ch (Krypyakevych), "Stefan Tomashivsky," ZNTSH, v. CLI, Lviv, 1931; D. Doroshenko, "Stefan Tomashivsky," Zeitschrift für osteuropäische Geschichte, v. V, issue 2, 1931; S. Tomashivsky — istoryk, polityk i publitsyst, Lviv, 1936; (I. Borshchak), "S. Tomashivsky — istoryk," Ukrayina, VI, Paris, 1951; N. Polons'ka‑Vasylenko, "Persha derzhavnyts'ka pratsya z istoriya Ukrayiny," Derzhavnyts'ka Dunka, IV, Philadelphia, 1951.
Literature on I. Krevetsky:
(I. Borshchak), "Pamyati Ivana Krevets'koho," Ukrayina, IV, Paris, 1950.
"From the older generation of Ukrainophiles we inherited romantic views regarding the people and our nationality. We idolized the people as a life-giving force that will cure all the wounds of our artificially-cultured mode of life, that will give the answer to all our questions concerning the individual and social freedom, concerning happiness for individuals and the community . . . I have to add that this faith in the people was not as naive as it was before in the forties and in the fifties. We already knew that freedom was not sufficient without knowledge, without a European education. We also knew that nationalism in its pure form tends to lead man's ideas to conservatism. In the problems of our national movement we did not trespass the limits of self-defense. We hated the Polish as well as the Russian nationalism characterized by state violence . . . Kostomarov was our teacher in national-political problems . . . We were under the great influence of his scholarly publications, especially two of them: Mysli o federativnom nachale v drevnei Rusi (Thoughts on the Federative Principles in Ancient Rus′) and Dve russkiya narodnosti (Two Rus′ Nationalities). These two works, as other works by Kostomarov, were based on ideas of democracy which in the past had been cultivated by the Ukrainian people. We deemed that we should awaken this idea in people's souls and concentrate our political and social life around it. This idea was not worked out in detail, but it was our lodestar . . ." (From Zhytetsky's speech at the Shevchenko Memorial Meeting in 1887 or 1888, ZNTSH, vol. 116, Lviv, 1913, pp178‑181).
151 Khokhly — nickname for Ukrainians.
154 Also by O. Konyky, D. Pyl'chykiv, M. Zhuchenko.
155 See: D. Doroshenko, "Elizaveta Ivanovna z Skoropads'kykh Myloradovych," Khliborobs'ka Ukrayina, v. V, Vienna, 1925.
156 A peculiar Russian dialect used at that time in Galicia.
157 The following works devoted to the history of the Carpathian Ukraine are worth mentioning: I. Dulishkovych, Istoricheskiya cherty ugro-russkago naroda (Historical Features of the Hungarian‑Rus′ People), 3 volumes, Uzhgorod, 1875‑1877; O. Dukhnovych, Istoriya Pryashevskoi Eparkhii (v Ugorskoi Rusi) (History of Pryashev Diocese in the Hungarian Rus′), translated by Archpriest K. Kustodiev, 1877.
158 See: V. Doroshenko, "Literaturno-Naukovyi Vistnyk", Ukrayins'ki Bibliolohichni Visti, UVAN, I, Augsburg, 1948.
159 The Ukrainian democratic government.
160 In 1924 Hrushevsky returned to the Ukraine, became a full member of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and the head of its Historical Section. In 1931 he was banished to Moscow, in 1934 he died in Kislovodsk, in the Caucasus. For his scholarly activities in 1920‑1930 see the supplementary chapter of this book.
161 Istoriya Ukrayiny-Rusy by Hrushevsky was reprinted in New York, 1954‑1957.
162 The English translation appeared in The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U. S., Vol. II, No. 4 (6), New York, 1952, the German translation, in Beiträge zur Ukrainekunde, published by the Ukrainian Scientific Institute, Berlin, 1935, issue III.
163 This problem is also treated in the following works" D. Doroshenko, "Was ist osteuropäische Geschichte? (Zur Abgrenzung der ukrainischen und russischen Geschichte)," Zeitschrift für osteuropäische Geschichte, Band IX, 1934, Heft I; N. Chubaty, "The Ukrainian and Russian Conceptions of the History of Eastern Europe," Proceedings of the Historical-Philosophical Section, Shevchenko Scientific Society, Vol. I, New York-Paris, 1951.
164 A. Shakhmatov, "K voprosu ob obrazovanii russkikh narechii" (On the Subject of the Formation of Russian Dialects), Russkii Filologicheskii Vestnik, 1894, and other studies.
165 V. Shcherbakivsky voiced some critical opinions in regard to Hrushevsky's conception of the origin of the Ukrainian people. See his article, "Kontseptsiya Hrushevs'koho pro pokhozhdennya ukrayins'koho narodu v svitli paleoetnolohiyi" (Hrushevsky's Concept of the Origin of the Ukrainian People in the Light of Paleethnology), Pratsi Ukrayins'koho Istorychno-Filolohichnoho Tovarystva v Prazi, Prague, 1941, v. 5, and separately, Prague, 1940.
166 They are also collected in two volumes of Rozvidky i Materiyaly do istoriyi Ukrayiny-Rusy (Studies and Materials for the History of the Ukraine‑Rus′), Lviv, 1896 and 1897.
167 Hrushevsky wrote in his Avtobiohrafiya (Autobiography), 1906, pp9‑10: "Very early, when I was still in Kiev, I dreamed of writing a complete history of the Ukraine. I felt that this was a question of honor, not only on my own part, but that of our generation, notwithstanding contrary views held by more prominent old generation representatives of Ukrainian historiography who thought the time was not ripe enough for writing such a history — that there was not sufficient material, that there were large gaps . . . I looked upon this work as the task of my life."
171 Kwartalnik Historyczny, v. XX, p665, Lviv. Some critical remarks in regard to the first volumes of the History of the Ukraine‑Rus′ were made by Ivan Franko in his book, Prychynky do istoriyi Ukrayiny-Rusy (Material for the History of the Ukraine‑Rus′), Lviv, 1912. Istoriya Ukrayiny-Rusy by M. Hrushevsky, as well as his scheme of the Ukrainian historical process, were praised by some of the best representatives of Russian historical science; for example, see A. Presnyakov, Obrazovanie Velikorusskago gosudarstva. Ocherki po istorii XIII‑XV stoletii (Formation of the Great-Russian State. Essays on the History of the XIII‑XV Centuries), Petrograd, 1918, pp1‑2.
172 Reviewed by D. I. Doroshenko, Literaturno-Naukovyi Vistnyk, 1913, book XI.
173 This publication was lost in Moscow during the Revolution.
174 Vol. IX of the History of the Ukraine‑Rus′ was published in Kiev: the first part in 1928, the second in 1931. Volume X (covering the time up to the year 1658) was published after Hrushevsky's death, Kiev, 1937.
176 A part of the History of Ukraine‑Rus′ was published in the Russian translation: Kievskaya Rus′, Kiev, 1912, and Istoriya Ukrainskago kozachestva do soedineniya s Moskovskim Gosudarstvom, v. I, Kiev, 1913, v. II, Kiev, 1914. Istoriya Ukrainskago kozachestva was reviewed by D. I. Doroshenko in Ukrainskaya Zhizn', Moscow, 1913, book IV, 1914, book I.
177 Reviewed by D. I. Doroshenko in Vestnik Vospitaniya, St. Petersburg, 1905, book I.
178 Reviewed by D. I. Doroshenko in Vestnik Vospitaniya, St. Petersburg, 1905, book III; Ukrainskii Vestnik, St. Petersburg, 1906, No. 3.
179 Reviewed by D. I. Doroshenko in Ukrainskaya Zhizn', Moscow, 1912, book I.
180 Reviewed by D. I. Doroshenko in Khliborobs'ka Ukrayina, book III, Vienna, 1921.
181 Reviewed by D. I. Doroshenko in Ukrainskaya Zhizn', Moscow, 1912, bok XII.
182 Hrushevsky's popular surveys of Ukrainian history were published in English, A History of Ukraine, edited by Prof. O. J. Frederiksen, preface by Paul George Vernadsky, New Haven, 1941; in French, Abrégé de l'histoire de l'Ukraine, Paris-Geneva-Prague, 1920; in German, Ein Überblick der Geschichte der Ukraine, Vienna, 1914; Die ukrainische Frage in ihrer historischer Entwicklung, Vienna, 1915; Geschichte der Ukraine, I, Lviv, 1916; in Bulgarian, Pregled na ukrainskata istoriya, Sofia, 1914.
183 Reviewed by D. I. Doroshenko in Ukrainskaya Zhizn', Moscow, 1912, book IX.
184 The bibliography of M. Hrushevsky's works published in 1888‑1904, was compiled by I. Levytsky in Naukovyi Zbirnyk prysvyachenyi Prof. M. Hrushevs'komu uchenykamy i prykhyl'nykamy (Symposium of Scholarly Works Dedicated to M. Hrushevsky by his Students and Followers), Lviv, 1906; 1905‑1928, "Bibliohrafiya prats' Akad. M. S. Hrushevs'koho" (Bibliography of Academician M. S. Hrushevsky's Works) in Yuvileynyi Zbirnyk VUAN na poshanu Akad. M. S. Hrushevsks'koho (Book of Praise in Honor of M. S. Hrushevsky), vol. III, Kiev, 1929.
185 Later the well-known geographer.
186 Second edition: S. Tomashivsky, Istoriya Ukrayiny. Starynni i seredni viky, Munich, 1948 (mimeographed).
187 About later scholarly activities of Tomashivsky, see the supplementary chapter of this book.
188 For later scholarly activities of M. Korduba, see the supplementary chapter of this book.
189 I. Dzhydzhora's works on the history of the Hetman State were republished by the Historical Section of the All‑Ukrainian Academy of Sciences: I. Dzhydzhora, Ukrayina v pershiy polovyni XVIII veku (Ukraine in the First Half of the XVIII Century).
190 For further scholarly activities of Prof. I. Krypyakevych, see the supplementary chapter of this book.
191 For N. Chubaty's further activities, see the supplementary chapter of this book.
192 For further scholarly activities of Lototsky, see the supplementary chapter of this book.
Images with borders lead to more information.
The thicker the border, the more information. (Details here.)
History of Ukraine
A page or image on this site is in the public domain ONLY
if its URL has a total of one *asterisk.
If the URL has two **asterisks,
the item is copyright someone else, and used by permission or fair use.
If the URL has none the item is © Bill Thayer.
See my copyright page for details and contact information.
Page updated: 20 Jul 22