History of Ukraine: Annotation

History of Ukraine accordingly adapted to grade schools’ program, was brought out in 1920, but wasn’t distributed on a large scale. Almost all copies of this book were destroyed during author’s lifetime. M. Grushevsky decided to publish a popular textbook on history long since. As he wrote in a preface to his book “Illustrated history of Ukraine” – “as soon as Ukrainian word had got some freedom of the press in Russia in 1905, my first thought was - at last I can accomplish what I had intended to do, to publish an easily understood illustrated history of Ukraine”. First of all I wanted to issue a short popular history, which later appeared under the name “About old times in Ukraine” in the spring of 1907.

This textbook – as author himself described, is thoroughly edited and adapted to schools the edition of “Illustrated history of Ukraine”. So, each comment to this book is superfluous. Since a social and cultural approach serves as a basis for this book rather than a dynastic genealogical tree one which was very much usual for the traditional school of that time Russian school included, this book meets scholar’s conception completely. In this book M. Grushevsky investigates not an activity of princes and kings, but the social and political structure, culture, ethnography and legal matters instead – everything that forms a society and is called a nation. Namely it was his idea in historical perspective that allowed him to arrive at a conclusion that each of three nations Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorussians, who constituted their territorial integrity at the place of former Kievan-Rus’, had sharp distinctions between themselves but at the same time sharing the common traits of course.

In the article “customary pattern of “Russian” history and question of rational structure in the history of eastern Slavdom” issued in a St. Petersburg academic collection “Articles on Slavonic philology” for 1904, the scholar denies the opinions of popular state scholars according to which the history of Vladimiro-Moscow princedom of 13-14th century was combined with the history of southern tribes of Kiev commonwealth. M. Grushevsky demonstrates that by artificially manipulating only with genealogical continuity, the Kiev period in the history of Ukrainian-Russian relations gets connected with Vladimiro-Moscow princedom, and that these states were different with differing standards of culture and ethnicity.

In view of the so called artificial junction conception of “Kiev period” with the state and cultural history of Great Russian people as the scholar considers, the Ukrainian-Russian nationality appears on the historical scene in 5-6th century as a new entity as if it would had never existed before and never had its own identity at all.

In the meanwhile, he demonstrates that it was for Ukrainian people rather than for a genealogical tree of princes’ succession to a throne to be the direct heir of the history of Ukrainian-Russian nationality in the time of Kievan-Rus. And to simplify this rational structure so everyone can understand it, Grushevsky suggests viewing the history of State system like being closely linked with the society history as a whole, putting on the first place such things like: economical, cultural and other factors instead of political and state ones.

Since the Ukrainian-Russian nationality had no national state-political constitution over the time of many centuries and was submitted to the other states’ influence, so its national way of life had been under a strong impact of external factors, even the political system had been influenced to a great extent despite the economical, cultural and national factors. Fraternal Belarussians shared the same lot, though they made a contribution to the foundation of Lithuanian princedom. As Grushevsky put it – to better understand the history of Ukrainian-Russian and Belarussian people one has to refrain from linking it to the history of Great Russian people and to get rid of the fiction that is - the “Russian history” (substituted with Great Russian history) to be the “All-Russian” history.

Grushevsky considered that it would be more rational to describe the history of each nationality separately, taking into account a genetic “continuity”. He doesn’t however exclude the possibility of depicting the history of three fraternal people in a synchronized way (the way all world histories are made).

Scholar strongly confirms that the history of Ukraine develops through a Galitsko-Volynskoe kniazhestvo (princedom) which after a devastation of Kiev by Mongol-Tatars withstood the assaults of eastern invaders and hadn’t undergone any changes like had been the case with Vladimiro-Moscowskoe princedom. Afterwards the Lithuanian- Polish period starts in the history of Ukraine, and ends in 16th century. A liberation war of Ukrainian people against Polish dominion in the middle of 17th century is described separately. When thoroughly examining period of Hetmanate, Grushevsky for the reason states that leaders of right-bank Ukraine (on the sly took away the rest of Ukrainian rights in policymaking and let the Moscow government do the same, faithfully fulfilling Moscow politicians’ wishes of any kind).

Much of the space Grushevsky devotes to Mazepa and Orlik – two hetmans who were at the head of Ukrainian Cossack movement and had a final say within certain limits till the national liberation.

The textbook consists of four parts: “Ukraine till the foundation of Kiev government”, “Lithuanian- Polish period”, “Cossack period”, “Downfall of the Cossacks and Ukrainian life”. Unlike “Illustrated history”, the fourth part of the book contains another three subsections titled like: “World War and extermination of Ukrainian identity”, “Revolution and Ukraine’s liberation” and “Ukrainian people's republic” where all acute problems in the history of our people of 20th century are addressed by the author in a detailed way. The ending part of the book is reserved for the Proclamation of Fourth Universal of the “independent, free and sovereign State of Ukrainian Nation”.

Certainly, not all of the author’s conceptions have to be taken in all good faith, and there is no need for doing it. Some of his conclusions are being supplemented or even refuted due to latest discoveries in the historical science. Despite some of the contradictions, this book as a whole gives an opportunity to get acquainted with author’s opinions as well as with the life of common Ukrainian people, at times glorious at other times tragic.

Young generation has an excellent possibility to make use of the rich heritage of great scholar. The heritage that can help us build Sovereign Ukrainian State.