Україна на історіографічній мапі міжвоєнної Європи/Introduction
|←Вступне слово||Україна на історіографічній мапі міжвоєнної Європи (2014)
|Pavlo Khrystiuk’s History and the Politics of Ukrainian Anti-Colonialism→|
| Завантажити у • • •
In 2012–2013 three international academic conferences aimed at understanding the Ukrainian historiographic process of the 20th — early 21st centuries were held. The first one, «Ukraine on the Historiographic Map of Interwar Europe» was organized at the Ukrainian Free University (UFU) in Munich (Germany) in 2012. The following year conferences were held in Kyiv (Ukraine) at the Institute of History of Ukraine («The Light and Shadows of Ukrainian Soviet Historiography», 22–23 May 2013) and Cambridge (Mass., USA) at the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute («Quo Vadis Ukrainian History? Assessing the State of the Field», 19–20 November 2013).
The leading centers of Ukrainian Studies — the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute (USA), the Peter Jacyk Centre for Ukrainian Historical Research (Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of Alberta), the Ukrainian Free University (UFU) in Munich, the Institute of History of Ukraine at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the W. K. Lypynsky East European Research Institute (Philadelphia, USA), and the Department of History of Eastern- and Southern-Eastern Europe at the Historical Seminar (Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich) were the organizers of these events.
This volume contains some of the materials of the first conference which was held 1–3 July 2012 at the premises of the Ukrainian Free University. Founded in Vienna in 1921, the UFU was soon transferred to Prague and in 1945 to Munich. In the interwar period, it was not only a higher institution for émigré Ukrainian youth but also one of the leading institutions for researching Ukrainian history in Europe. Not surprisingly, the interwar historiographic legacy of the UFU and its professors was often addressed at the conference.
Six panels were held at the conference. On 1 July, the thematic direction of the conference was defined by Professor Andreas Kappeler in his introductory lecture, «What is Ukraine? What is Europe? What is a Historiographic Map?», in which he formulated a number of important questions. What territories should be included in interwar Europe? Who could be considered a Ukrainian historian? Who were immigrants from Ukraine? Where was research in Ukrainian studies conducted? What were the connections with non-Ukrainian scholars? Professor Kappeler paid special attention to the content of historical research during the interwar period, provoking the following questions: what are considered to be Ukrainian studies? What historical schools were involved in the emigration? How did the historiographic situation in the new countries of settlement impact their research? Were they under the influence of Soviet historiography? What specific topics were elaborated by émigré historians? How did the political situation in interwar Europe influence the historiographic process? Professor Kappeler’s closing remarks were that the answers to these and many other questions would help define Ukraine’s place on the map of Europe.
On 2 July, Professor Mark von Hagen opened the panel, «Revising the Revolution», with his presentation «Pavlo Khrystiuk’s History and the Politics of Ukrainian Anti-Colonialism», in which he spoke on Khrystiuk’s fate, his return to the Soviet Ukraine and his concept of history of the Ukrainian revolution. In his presentation, «The Ukrainian Revolution in Reflections of Interwar Émigré Historiography», Professor Vladyslav Verstiuk focused mainly on the vision of the Ukrainian revolution by Mykhailo Hruhevsky, Volodymyr Vynnychenko, and Viacheslav Lypynsky, whose concepts and thoughts were used not only in academic polemics but also in political struggle between various groups in emigration and were later revived in independent Ukraine. This idea of historical work as an instrument in political struggle was elaborated by Oleh Pavlyshyn in his presentation, «The “United Ukraine” Idea in the Discourse of Émigré Historiography of the Ukrainian Revolution», who pointed out the engagement of various authors in historical events.
Professor Zenon Kohut opened 'the second panel, «Historians of the State School», with his presentation «Habent sua fata libelli: The Torturous Destiny of Two Monographs on Hetman Petro Doroshenko», in which he discussed the fate of Dmytro Doroshenko’s manuscript on his prominent ancestor and the circumstances in which it was discovered and published in 1985. The presenter also made a comparative analysis with a monograph on Petro Doroshenko by the Polish scholar Jan Perdenia, which had been similarly published many years after the author’s death. In his presentation, «Hrushevsky Confronts Lypynsky: The Historian’s Final Assessment of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky and the Khmelnytsky Era» Professor Frank Sysyn spoke on the controversial attitudes of these two prominent Ukrainian historians regarding the Khmelnytsky era, emphasizing the impact of Lypynsky’s book Ukraїna na perelomi [Ukraine at Crossroads] on Ukrainian historical thought and political discourse. The presenter noted that Lypynsky is usually considered as a historian of the statist school while his treatment of nation and people was underestimated, as well as his attempt to undermine the traditional Polish historical scheme.
Vadym Adadurov opened the third panel, «People and Institutions of the Central- and West-European Emigration», with his presentation «The Construction of a Mythological Image of Ukraine in France in the 18‒19th Centuries by Ilko Borshchak, or the Limits of Freedom and Researcher’s Responsibility in Interpretation of Historical Sources». After a thorough discussion of archival sources, the researcher discovered various falsifications employed by Borshchak, which, unfortunately, were accepted by modern Ukrainian historiography. In his presentation, «The Life and Work of Stepan Rudnytsky in Vienna and Prague in 1921‒1926», Professor Guido Hausmann spoke about the émigré activities of this well-known geographer in the context of European scholarship. He concluded that the fact that the German and Austrian academic milieu ignored Rudnytsky might have caused his return to Soviet Ukraine. Tetiana Boriak’s presentation, «The Ukrainian Historical Cabinet and the Phenomenon of the Prague Archive», dealt with works by Arkadii Zhyvotko and the Ukrainian Historical Cabinet, which he directed. In his presentation, «The Ukrainian Research Institute in Berlin and History as a Science», Professor Nicolas Szafowal analyzed the activities of this émigré institution focusing on its historical works. He noted that in the interwar period academic institutions were frequently favourable to political organizations and movements: the institute was under the influence of the conservative monarchist ideology.
On 3 July, Professor Leonid Zashkilniak opened the next panel, «In the Homeland and in Emigration: Ukrainian Historiography in Interwar Poland». In his presentation, «Ukrainian Historiography in Interwar Poland: Ways of Legitimization of the National History», he argued that despite ongoing tensions between Ukrainian politicians and society and the Polish authorities, Ukrainian historians managed to use their scholarship to contribute to Ukrainian historical thought. In his presentation, «The Ukrainian Scientific Institute (Ukrainskyi Naukovyi Instytut) in Warsaw (1930–1939). Policy of History in Interwar Poland», Andrii Portnov spoke about the personal strategies of émigré historians, the possibilities of their «academic assimilation», and their career opportunity, which often depended on their political preferences, non-Ukrainian connections, and topics of their publications. Professor Yaroslav Hrytsak’s presentation, «The Ukrainian Dimension of Franciszek Bujak School», examined the attitude of Franciszek Bujak to Ukrainians and the Ukrainian question and revealed the multinational nature of the school in which the whole political spectrum of interwar Poland was represented. Professor Michael Moser spoke on «History of Ukrainian Literary Language by Ivan Ohiienko and “We”», focusing on a thorough language analysis of this popular work through the prism of creating the images of «We» and «They».
At the panel «The Dialogue across Borders», Oksana Iurkova in her presentation, «Honouring the Patriarch: A Response to Hrushevsky’s Death outside Soviet Ukraine», pointed out the different levels of honouring the prominent historian, including obituaries, newspapers, and social events. Professor Serhii Plokhii’s presentation, «The Dialogue across Borders: Ukrainian Historians in Search of “The History of the Rus′ ” Author», was devoted to the cooperation among scholars, primarily from Galicia and Kyiv, in 1939‒1941, which became possible after «the golden September» of 1939.
The conference concluded with the round table «The Balance Sheet of the Ukrainian Historiography between the Wars». The participants agreed that many questions have not been addressed despite the productive discussion at the conference. They noted that gaps remain on both empirical and theoretical levels, which encouraged continuing the studies.
A selection of the papers from the conference is included in this volume. We are grateful to Oksana Iurkova for undertaking the editorial compilation of the proceedings.
Frank Е. Sysyn