The Future of the Past: New Perspectives on Ukrainian History (original) (raw)
Related papers
This book elucidates complex and long process of the "Ukrainian Historical Journal" transformation from the republican professional publication, founded in 1957 to a modern journal of Ukrainian historians. Esseys and materials connected with the journal's history are published in two main segments: 1) materials covering the history of Ukraine in the Soviet and post-Soviet times; 2) esseys with analytical interpretation of journal's publications and its changes with regards to the defi nite problems, topics, periods and epochs of the history of Ukraine, in particular, history of the Middle Ages and early modern history, history of the XIX — the early XX centuries, the Ukrainian revolution of 1917-1921, inter-war and post-war history of Soviet Ukraine, Ukrainian dimension of the history of World War II, and also studying the problems of the world history in the journal's publications, etc.
Th is book elucidates complex and long process of the "Ukrainian Historical Journal" transformation from the republican professional publication, founded in 1957 to a modern journal of Ukrainian historians. Esseys and materials connected with the journal's history are published in two main segments: 1) materials covering the history of Ukraine in the Soviet and post-Soviet times; 2) esseys with analytical interpretation of journal's publications and its changes with regards to the defi nite problems, topics, periods and epochs of the history of Ukraine, in particular, history of the Middle Ages and early modern history, history of the XIX-the early XX centuries, the Ukrainian revolution of 1917-1921, inter-war and postwar history of Soviet Ukraine, Ukrainian dimension of the history of World War II, and also studying the problems of the world history in the journal's publications, etc.
Volume 6 of Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi's (Hrushevsky's) monumental History of Ukraine-Rus' is the concluding tome of a three-volume series (volumes 4, 5, and 6) dedicated to the Lithuanian-Polish epoch of the history of the Ukrainian people. Volumes 1 to 3 of Hrushevs'kyi's History, together, address the period ending with the fall of Kyivan Rus' and the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia, while the tomes after volume 6 deal with the early stages of the Cossack period and the (re-)establishment of Ukrainian sovereignty in the form of the Cossack Hetmanate. Hrushevs'kyi's conceptualization of the "history of the Ukrainian people" can be seen as one of his most important contributions to Eastern European historiography. In his work, we encounter the study of the Ukrainian people as a whole-as opposed to the study of various distinct entities located within a number of neighbouring states (Poland; the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; Hungary and then Austria-Hungary; Muscovy and then Russia; and so on). Hrushevs'kyi conceived of a fundamental unity permeating the history of the Ukrainian people from the time of Rus' all the way to the goal and apogee of the historian-cumpolitician-the re-establishment of a unified and independent Ukraine in the twentieth century (a project that Hrushevs'kyi himself took part in, both in its glorious beginnings and in its heartbreaking failures). In setting down a thesis on the continuity of the history of the Ukrainian people, Hrushevs'kyi provided subsequent generations of students of Ukrainian history with an essentially anti-statist methodological framework that allowed them to explore a subject area not merely reduced to a political history of a state with precisely delineated political borders. Such theoretical innovation and foresight have secured Hrushevs'kyi's high stature in the field of history-and especially in the study of Ukrainian cultural history. Mention should also be made of Hrushevs'kyi's importance in the study of the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (PLC) as a whole. By creating a model that includes the dwellers of the Brest and Pinsk regions of what is now Belarus within a definition of the Ukrainian people and that thoroughly documents them, Hrushevs'kyi has indirectly given us a paradigm for conducting cross-cultural and cross-national research that aims to
East/West: Journal of Ukrainian Studies
Volume 6 of Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi's (Hrushevsky's) monumental History of Ukraine-Rus' is the concluding tome of a three-volume series (volumes 4, 5, and 6) dedicated to the Lithuanian-Polish epoch of the history of the Ukrainian people. Volumes 1 to 3 of Hrushevs'kyi's History, together, address the period ending with the fall of Kyivan Rus' and the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia, while the tomes after volume 6 deal with the early stages of the Cossack period and the (re-)establishment of Ukrainian sovereignty in the form of the Cossack Hetmanate. Hrushevs'kyi's conceptualization of the "history of the Ukrainian people" can be seen as one of his most important contributions to Eastern European historiography. In his work, we encounter the study of the Ukrainian people as a whole-as opposed to the study of various distinct entities located within a number of neighbouring states (Poland; the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; Hungary and then Austria-Hungary; Muscovy and then Russia; and so on). Hrushevs'kyi conceived of a fundamental unity permeating the history of the Ukrainian people from the time of Rus' all the way to the goal and apogee of the historian-cumpolitician-the re-establishment of a unified and independent Ukraine in the twentieth century (a project that Hrushevs'kyi himself took part in, both in its glorious beginnings and in its heartbreaking failures). In setting down a thesis on the continuity of the history of the Ukrainian people, Hrushevs'kyi provided subsequent generations of students of Ukrainian history with an essentially anti-statist methodological framework that allowed them to explore a subject area not merely reduced to a political history of a state with precisely delineated political borders. Such theoretical innovation and foresight have secured Hrushevs'kyi's high stature in the field of history-and especially in the study of Ukrainian cultural history. Mention should also be made of Hrushevs'kyi's importance in the study of the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (PLC) as a whole. By creating a model that includes the dwellers of the Brest and Pinsk regions of what is now Belarus within a definition of the Ukrainian people and that thoroughly documents them, Hrushevs'kyi has indirectly given us a paradigm for conducting cross-cultural and cross-national research that aims to
Ar E rule, hlntorlans of historiography provide accounts of a gradual but pro-l|lrrlvo emcrgence of "objective knowledge" which separates views that have ir4 to thc foriration of "scientific history" from those that are in one way or lmlhor Chlracterieed as wrong. The former are then praised while the latter are ifn,ctroU. Thir approach hai its merits but it cannot provide us with a history oihow tho p6st was understood in the past. The Westem critical tradition, which inoiu.to, doiorminist Marxism, attempts to distinguish between truth and legend ,r rirrr, und tcnds to dismiss or overlook what was regarded as hisrorical know-iLfd fn tfro p,Bt. yct, legend and myth does influence behaviour, and, therefore, Wtfif fnC crlticul method might identify as "lies" or "tricks" is none the less iip,rrrinr und worthy of study, especially for pre-industrial societies, where ,,hirlorlcnl lrulh" w8s anything ihat conformed to the community's conception of lho pnrt,l Nsrrullvc hlstory, Georges Sorel pointed out, traditionally was important to frlCty not hccsu$c it *u* tru" or "objective," but because it provided a useful rf lttilcrlr. picture of the past. For most people the past was not reasoned *irniir,,t,rgtcul cxplunation, but a series of images of outstanding events which Inrlltkur-nnrl mcmory told them led to imponant changes in their world' The hlrt0rlnn who wunt$ to identify this particular kind of historical knowledge rhrultl crumlnc hiri texts as much for continuities as for changes, and ask il;iilnuch us: whst did the literate remember after they had forgotten facts? *'hrt f ln4 of un impression of an event or country remained in the mind after lhr hxrkr lnd urricles were put away? what did the illiterate remember after the nort'l.llor hrd lcft? llroro rcnlclual images make up the structure of historical consciousness or ilI ncrur ol' hlrtoricul-myths that bind peoples and nations together. Broadly ilillnf, thlr knowlcdge may be divided into official, unofficial, "elite"' and tfr1i;;j, Fjlrc knowlc-clge, offical and unofficial, had a pennanence because it Ji n nyA"l. lnnofar a* ofticial historiography was written by or for members t i *f f o5 .lltc, lt oqioycd the authority and prestige bestowed by statehood and i*'-,ffii*lnotlon thanks to govemment sponsorship. "Popular" historical l;"bJr;. offlclal und unofficial, existed in the consci::::"::.of lh: ftt-"i mpuiffton, Though corrcsponding to a degree with "elite" knowledge and [iftn. irorontr oI official and unofficial historiography, the "popular" imagc iii pai wlr rlmplcr and impcrmsnent because, until recently, it was trans-fO itroily, wlrhl; glven communitics clitc historical knowledge and popular xlv National Historv as Cultural Process understanding of the past interrelates on what Vico called a "public ground of truth." This relationship was almost predetermined if for no other reason than because the chronicler/historian leamed parts of each as a child. Indeed, unless the chronicler/historian at least started from his reader's half-conscious assumptions about their past, he most probably would not have been read and would have forfeited the possiblity of changing or rectifying popular belief. His final synthesis was usually a reflection of the prevailing mythology, although his image of the past was carefully pieced together in accordance with certain methodological principles, a system of formal logic, and some kind of precise cogency. The symbiotic relationship between scholarship and myth was thereby only modified not eliminated. l{ational History as Cultural Process traces the evolution of interpretations of Ukraine's past in survey histories of Poland, Russia and Ukraine. The book provides a guide to and summary of the Polish, Russian and Ukrainian elite images of Ukrainian history but also examines the broader issue of how interpretations change. As a comparative study of historiography as ideology this study does not judge interpretations according to criteria of truth and validity. While this book was in press, the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute issued the first volumes in two series that will reprint, or publish for the first time, the classics of Ukrainian historiography' By early next century these works will be much more readily available to readers.
Ukraine's Transnational History
How do you write a history of a country that for centuries was split into several empires, lacked both an uninterrupted tradition of statehood and an established high culture with a standardized language, was inhabited by several ethnic groups, the dominant one -the "little Russians" or "Ruthenians" -being mostly illiterate peasants concentrated in rural areas who left no written records for wide swaths of time and lacked any national consciousness until World War I? How does one write about the history of these people who, even when they became literate, were forbidden to publish literature in Ukrainian (within the Russian Empire), and when Ukrainian history did not even exist as a field of study in universities? The answer, according to an international consortium of historians, is to write "transnational history," which they generally define as the study of relations between cultures and societies, focusing on "agents of cultural exchange" (pp. 3, 86). The purpose of this book, A Laboratory of Transnational History. edited by Georgiy Kasianov (Institute of Ukrainian History of Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev) and Philipp Ther (European University Institute, Florence), is to contemplate alternative, more accurate, ways of interpreting Ukrainian history, eschewing "linear and longue durée causal explanations, as well as teleology,"
From "the Ukraine" to Ukraine. A Contemporary History 1991 2021 short
Stuttgrat: ibidem Verlag, 2021
In this book, we aim to present the contemporary history of the people of Ukraine. Ukrainians deserve a contemporary history that follows their own expression not only through politics but also in private entrepreneurship, art, religion, and self-imagination. Ac- cordingly, the chapters that follow cover thirty years of Ukraine’s development in the fields of politics, economics, energy, society, media, contemporary art, religion, national identity, and democ- racy. One of our major tasks was to find a meeting point for the per- spectives of Ukrainian and Western scholars on this three-decade story of contemporary Ukraine. For this reason, each chapter was co-written by authors from Western and Ukrainian universities and research institutions in what was often a time-consuming and com- plex interaction. Additionally, each chapter was written in an at- tempt to blend academic depth and rigor with accessibility to a wider, not only academic, readership. We hope that readers will agree that the result was worth the effort.
New Research on Early Modern Ukraine: Foreword
East/West: Journal of Ukrainian Studies
Conferences and panels have become an "ordinary way of life" for researchers, and it may appear idle to remember one of the hundreds of similar academic gatherings in Slavic and Ukrainian studies. Nonetheless, the conference held on 14-15 January 2019 in Naples is worth recalling. Today, as we continue to fight the COVID-19 virus, we may remember those days as a happy period when people could freely travel, talk, socialize, and discuss ideas, findings, and plans in the field each one of us knows and loves. The stay in Naples was beautiful, enhanced by some sightseeing and gastronomical pleasures. Thanks to Maria Grazia Bartolini and other members of the Italian Association for Ukrainian Studies (AISU)-Alessandro Achilli, Simone Attilio Bellezza, and Marco Puleri-we had a remarkable pre-dinner drink in a charming coffee shop in the very heart of Naples's intricate (and intriguing) downtown. It seems like ages ago, but those days are engraved in my memory as a recent joyful event. I wish to express here my gratitude to the mentioned Italian scholars of the younger generation, who organized the event, which was sponsored by the University of Naples Federico II, the Italian Association for Ukrainian Studies, and the Italian Association of Slavists (AIS). I am also grateful to the participants who came from various countries and represented, on the one side, the crème de la crème of Ukrainian studies, and on the other, some of the most promising scholars of the future-the generation in their 30s and 40s-who will continue the job of us "elders." Fortunately, they change, revise, and introduce new methods, ideas, and points of view. I am personally very proud of my former students-not only the best ones whom some colleagues know well, but also the dozens of other students who took just one course on Ukrainian literature and language out of simple curiosity, stimulated by the events of the 2000s and 2010s, by the Orange Revolution of 2004-05 and the Euromaidan/Revolution of Dignity of 2013-14. With very few exceptions, they were all Italians, a point which, in my view, is extremely important for a healthy development of sound research and teaching of Ukrainian literature, language, and culture in Italy and beyond. The conference in Naples was remarkable, mainly for the high quality of the presentations. Allow me to name such outstanding specialists as George