Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2018
At the end of 1928 Matvyi Iavorskyi, head of historical studies in the Ukrainian Institute of Marxism-Leninism and hitherto considered a sort of court historian of Ukrainian communism, was attacked for allegedly committing “nationalistic deviations” in interpreting Ukrainian history. Iavorskyi was in no sense a “dissident” like Oleksander Shumskyi or Mykola Khvylovyi; he never, so far as is known, questioned the official Party line. Rather, he was a close associate of Mykola Skrypnyk, the political strongman of the Soviet Ukrainian regime, and the hue and cry raised against “Iavorskyism” in historial scholarship was actually an indirect attack upon Skrypnyk. It had the distinction of being the first such attack; it would not be the last.
1. There is a rich body of secondary material on Soviet Ukrainian historiography in the 1920s. See, for example, Korduba, Myron, La Litterature Historique Sovietique-Ukrainienne: Compte-Rendu 1917–1931 (Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1972); Olexander Ohloblyn, “Ukrainian Historiography, 1917–1956,” Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S., V-VI (1957), pp. 307–455; Borys Krupnytskyi, Ukrainska istorychna nauka pid Sovetamy (1920-1950) (Munich: Institute for the Study of the U.S.S.R., 1957); Borys Krypnytskyi, “Die ukrainische Geschichtswissenschaft in der Sowjetunion, 1921–1941,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, VI: 2/4 (1941), pp. 125–151; D. Doroshenko, “Die Entwicklung der Geschichtsforschung in der Sowjetukraine in den letzen Jahren,” Mitteilungen des ukrainischen wissenschaftlichen Institute in Berlin, Heft 2 (August 1928), pp. 35–56; O. M. “Ukrainska istorychna nauka v 1920-kh rokakh,” Suchasnyk, I: 1 (1948), pp. 76–84; Viach. Zaikin, “Ukrainskaia istoricheskaia literatura poslednikh let,” Na chuzhoi storone, X (1925), pp. 236–251. Among Soviet Ukrainian works, the following are especially valuable: the journal Istoriohrafichni doslidzhennia v Ukrainskii RSR (Kiev: 1968–1971); V. A. Diadichenko, F. E. Los, V. G. Sarbei, “Razvitie istoricheskoi nauki na Ukraine (1917-1963 gg.),” Voprosy istorii, 1964, no. 1, pp. 3–26; N. V. Komarenko, Ustanovy istorychnoi nauky v Ukrainskii RSR (1917-1937 rr.) (Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1973); N. V. Komarenko, Zhurnal “Litopys revoliutsii”: Istoriohrafichnyi narys (Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1970). It should be noted that Soviet works often suffer from politically mandated gaps which extend even to the level of journal bibliographies printed in very small editions. Except for the purpose of condemnation, those who were purged in the thirties and not rehabilitated are never mentioned, even in bibliographies, and the only way to locate the works of Marxist historians such as Matvyi Iavorskyi and Osyp Hermaize is by searching the tables of contents of journals or the year-end lists of contents in the journals themselves. This circumstance is an indication of the current state of Ukrainian historiographic research in the USSR.Google Scholar
2. The standard work on pre-revolutionary Ukrainian historiography is Dmytro Doroshenko, “A Survey of Ukrainian Historiography,” Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S., V-VI (1957), pp. 3–304.Google Scholar
3. See the collective obituary of the fifty Ukrainian scholars who perished in the years 1918–1923: “Zasluzheni dlia ukrainskoi nauky i ukrainoznavstva diiachi, shcho pomerly v rr. 1918–1923,” Ukraina, 1924, no. 3, pp. 180–191.Google Scholar
4. The comparison is rightly drawn by Horak, Stephen M., “Michael Hrushevsky: Portrait of a Historian,” Canadian Slavonic Papers, X:3 (1968), pp. 345–346.Google Scholar
5. Koch, Hans, “Mychajlo Hrusevskyj (1866-1966): Zum 100 jahrigen Geburtstag,” Ukraine in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, XIII:37 (1966), p. 151.Google Scholar
6. Visti VUTsVK, March 9, 1924, p. 1. See also Shevchenko, F. P., “Chomu Mykhailo Hrushevskyi povernuvsia na Radiansku Ukrainu?” Ukrainskyi istorychnyi zhurnal, 1966, no. 11, pp. 13–30.Google Scholar
7. Doroshenko, , “Die Entwicklung der Geschichtsforschung…,” 41–42.Google Scholar
8. Hrushevskyi, M., “Perspektyvy i vymohy ukrainskoi nauky,” Ukraina, 1926, no. 1, pp. 7, 10–12.Google Scholar
9. For a good brief discussion of Hrushevskyi's Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy, see Bahalii, D. I., Narys istorii Ukrainy na sotsiialno-ekonomichnomu grunti (Kiev: Ukrainska Akademiia Nauk, 1928), I, pp. 73–88.Google Scholar
10. Hrushevskyi, Mykh., Pochatky hromadianstva (Genetychna sotsiologiia) (Vienna: Ukrainskyi sotsiologichnyi instytut, 1921), especially p. 8, where he wrote: “But the formulae of the development of society which Engels took from Morgan were, in fact, wholly lacking in rigor and validity.” For a Soviet Marxist response, see: A Richytskyi, “Iak Hrushevskyi ‘vypravliae’ Engelsa,” Chervonyi shliakh, 1924, no. 3, pp. 183–190.Google Scholar
11. Hermaize, Osyp, “Iuvilei ukrainskoi nauki: Sorok rokiv diialnosty akad. M. S. Hrushevskoho,” Zhyttia i revoliutsiia, 1926, no. 10, p. 98.Google Scholar
12. Hrushevsky, Mychaylo, “The Traditional Scheme of ‘Russian’ History and the Problem of a Rational Organization of the History of the Eastern Slavs,” Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S., II: 4 (6) (Winter 1952), pp. 355–364. See also: Lubomyr Wynar, “Ukrainian-Russian Confrontation in Historiography: Michael Hrushevsky versus the Traditional Scheme of ‘Russian’ History,” Ukrainian Quarterly, XXX: 1 (1974), pp. 13–25.Google Scholar
13. Presniakov, A. E., The Formation of the Great Russian State (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1970), pp. 6–8ff. See also: Natalia Polonska-Vasylenko, Two Conceptions of the History of Ukraine and Russia (London: The Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, 1968).Google Scholar
14. Pokrovskii, M. N., Izbrannye proizvedeniia (Moscow: Mysl, 1965–1967), I, p. 345.Google Scholar
15. An admirable collection of such statements may be found in Rubach, M. A., “Burzhuazno-kurkulska nationalistychna ideolohiia pid mashkaroiu demokratii ‘trudovoho narodu’ (Sotsiialno-politychni pohliady M. S. Hrushevskoho),” Chervonyi shliakh, 1932, no. 5–6, 122–128.Google Scholar
16. Hrushevskyi, M., “V dvadtsat piati rokovyny smerty O. M. Lazarevskoho: Kilka sliv pro ioho naukovu spadshuchynu ta ii doslidzhennia,” Ukraina, 1927, no. 4, p. 17.Google Scholar
17. “Akademik D. I. Bahalii,” Visti VUTsVK, February 11, 1932, p. 5; D. D(oroshenko), “D. I. Bahalii,” Zeitschrift für osteuropäische Geschichte, VI/NF II: 2 (1932), p. 312; Doroshenko, “Ukrainische Akademie der Wissenschaften in Kyjiv,” Mitteilungen des ukrainischen wissenschaftlichen Institutes in Berlin, 1 (April 1927), p. 11.Google Scholar
18. Iavorskyi, M., Narys istorii Ukrainy (Kiev: DVU, 1923).Google Scholar
19. Bahalii, Dm., “Persha sproba nacherku istorii Ukrainy na tli istorychnoho materiializmu,” Chervonyi shliakh, 1923, no. 9, 145–161.Google Scholar
20. Iavorskyi, M., “De-shcho pro ‘krytychnu’ krytyku, pro ‘obektyvnu’ istoriiu ta shche i pro babusynu spidnytsiu,” Chervonyi shliakh, 1924, no. 3, pp. 167–182; Dm. Bahalii, “Z pryvodu antykrytyky prof. M. I. Iavorskoho,” Chervonyi shliakh, 1924, no. 6, pp. 149–160.Google Scholar
21. Hurevych, Z., “Psevdomarksyzm na sluzhbi ukrainskoho natsionalizma (Do ostannikh vystupiv O. Hermaize),” Bilshovyk Ukrainy, 1929, no. 9, p. 55.Google Scholar
22. Hermaize, O., Narysy z istorii revoliutsiinoho rukhu na Ukraini, Tom I. Revoliutsiina Ukrainska Partiia (RUP) (n. p.: Knyhospilka, 1926).Google Scholar
23. See especially Hermaize, Osyp, “Desiatylittia Zhovtnevoi revoliutsii i ukrainska nauka,” Ukraina, 1927, no. 6, pp. iii-iv.Google Scholar
24. Iavorskyi, M. I., “Suchasni techii sered ukrainskoi istoriohrafii,” in Kryza suschasnoi burzhuaznoi nauky ta marksyzm: Zbirnyk (Kharkiv: DVU, 1929), pp. 33–34.Google Scholar
25. Alatortsova, A. I. and Alekseeva, G. O., compilers, 50 let Sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauki: Khronika nauchnoi zhizni (Moscow: Mysl, 1971), pp. 30–31, 39. The decree founding Istpart placed it under Rabkrin (see text in Kulturne budivnytstvo, 1, pp. 112–113), but it was placed under the Central Committee in September 1922. “Vokrug raboty Istparta,” Letopis revoliutsii, No. 2 (1923), p. 283.Google Scholar
26. “Vokrug raboty Istparta,” Letopis revoliutsii, No. 4 (1932), pp. 316–317.Google Scholar
27. At the beginning of 1924 M. Ivanov complained that the conditions under which Istpart worked in both Kharkiv and the provinces were “not entirely favorable” and that many comrades did not realize how important Istpart work was. Shortly thereafter Medvedev, a secretary of the KP(b)U Central Committee, sent out a circular letter to all provincial Party committees stating that the work of Letopis revoliutsii was extremely important and should be included in libraries, clubs, Party schools, and read by Party members. In 1925 it was reported that the Poltava Istpart section was assigned only 100 rubles by its Party committee, while Chernihiv received only 200 rubles, and the Donbas gubkom decided not to create (i.e., abolish) the provincial Istpart and use those who had worked in it elsewhere. See Letopis revoliutsii, 1924, no. 1, p. 278; 1924, no. 3, p. 238; 1925, no. 3, pp. 238–243.Google Scholar
28. “Plan raboty Istparta TsK KP(b)U i Gub-Istpartov na 1925 god,” Letopis revoliutsii, 1925, no. 4, p. 233. At the first All-Ukrainian Conference of Istparts, various local delegates sharply criticized the center (i.e., Kharkiv) for trying to stifle local initiative, while the center accused the local organizations of not paying attention to it and trying to go their own way. “Vseukrainskoe Soveshchanie Istpartov,” Letopis revoliutsii, 1925, no. 3, 225-236; 1925, no. 4, 165-174.Google Scholar
29. Rish, Arnold, “Ocherki po istorii ‘Spilki,‘” Letopis revoliutsii, 1925, no. 2, pp. 125–173; no. 3, pp. 77–107.Google Scholar
30. “Vtoroe vseukrainskoe soveshchanie Istpartov,” Letopis revoliutsii, 1926, no. 3-4, p. 291.Google Scholar
31. Iuditskii, A., “Bund v Cherkasskom raione v 1904-5 gg.,” Letopis revoliutsii, No. 5 (1923), pp. 138, 140, 142.Google Scholar
32. Ravich-Cherkasskii, M., Istoriia Kommunisticheskoi Partii (b-ov) Ukrainy (Kharkiv: Gosizdat Ukrainy, 1923), p. 40.Google Scholar
33. Ibid., p. 11.Google Scholar
34. Ibid., p. 165.Google Scholar
35. Ibid., pp. 5–6.Google Scholar
36. Frid, D., “Do pytannia pro korinnia KPU,” Bilshovyk Ukrainy, 1927, no. 10, pp. 39–50; no. 14, pp. 27–38.Google Scholar
37. Ravich-Cherkasskii, M., “Ukrainska khudozhna literatura ruskoiu movoiu,” Krytyka, 1930, no. 3, pp. 27–36.Google Scholar
38. Entsyklopediia Ukrainoznavstva, II, 2431.Google Scholar
39. Sovetskaia istoricheskaia entsiklopediia, XI, columns 410–411.Google Scholar
40. Popov, M. M., Narys istorii Komunistychnoi Partii (bilshovykiv) Ukrainy (Kharkiv: Proletarii, 1928), pp. 3–10; quotations from pp. 3, 9.Google Scholar
41. Ibid., pp. 15–21, 38-45, 109-112, 218-219.Google Scholar
42. Sukhyno-Khomenko, V., “Problemy istorii KP(b)U (M. M. Popov — Narys istorii Komunistychnoi Partii (bilshovykiv) Ukrainy),” Bilshovyk Ukrainy, 1928, no. 13, pp. 69–78.Google Scholar
43. For biographical information on Iavorskyi, see Bolshaia sovetskaia entsiklopediia (1st ed., Moscow: Izdat. Kommakademii, 1931), LXV, column 328. Although this and other secondary accounts do not mention his work with Ukrnauka, a number of press accounts and interviews cite him in this role. See “Na shliakhakh orhanizatsii ukrainskoi nauky (Rozmova z zav. Ukrholovnaukoiu M. I. Iavorskym),” Visti VUTsVK, February 5, 1924, p. 2.Google Scholar
44. Iavorskii, M., “K istorii KP(b)U,” in Oktiabrskaia revoliutsiia: Pervoe piatiletie (Kharkiv: Gosizdat Ukrainy, 1922), p. 93.Google Scholar
45. Iavorskyi, M., Narysy z istorii revoliutsiinoi borotby na Ukraini (Kharkiv: DVU, 1927–1928), I, pp. 7–9 et passim.Google Scholar
46. Iavorskyi, M., “Problema ukrainskoi natsionalnoi-demokratychnoi revoliutsii u 1917 r., ii istorychni osnovy ta ii rukhovi syly,” Chervonyi shliakh, 1927, no. 2, p. 112.Google Scholar
47. Ibid., pp. 93–116.Google Scholar
48. Iavorskyi, , “Problema,” Chervonyi shliakh, 1927, no. 4, p. 100.Google Scholar
49. Ibid., p. 103.Google Scholar
50. Ibid., pp. 96, 104–110, Quotations from pp. 104, 110.Google Scholar
51. Ibid., p. 112.Google Scholar
52. Ibid., p. 116.Google Scholar
53. He devoted an article to the problem of Western influence on the Ukrainian revolutionary movement: Iavorskyi, “Westeuropäische Einflusse auf die Ideengestaltung der sozialen Bewegun in der Ukraine im zweiten und dritten Viertel des XIX. Jahrhunderts,” in Hoetzsch, Otto, ed., Aus dem historischen Wissenschaft in der Sovet-Union: Vorträge ihrer Vertreter während der “Russischer Historikerwoche,” veranstaltet in Berlin 1928 von der deutschen Gesellschaft zum Studien Osteuropas (Berlin: Ost-Europa Verlag, 1929), pp. 88–97.Google Scholar
54. Javorskyj, M. J., “Die Ergebnisse der ukrainischen Geschichtsforschung in den Jahren 1917–1927,” in Hoetzsch, , ed., Aus dem historischen Wissenschaft in der Sovet-Union, pp. 98–105.Google Scholar
55. “Pervaia vsesoiuznaia konferentsiia marksistsko-leninskikh nauchno-issledovateskikh uchrezhdenii,” Vestnik Kommunisticheskoi Akademii, 1928, no. 2 (26), pp. 272–273.Google Scholar
56. Trudy Pervoi Vsesoiuznoi konferentsii Istorikov-marksistov (2nd ed., Moscow: Izd. Kommakademii, 1930), I, pp. 426–435.Google Scholar
57. Iavorskyi, M. I., “Suchasni techii sered ukrainskoi istoriohrafii,” in Kryza suchasnoi burzhauznoi nauky ta marksyzm: Zbirnyk (Kharkiv: DVU, 1929), pp. 18–38.Google Scholar
58. In a June 1926 speech to the Ukrainian Komsomol, Zatonskyi attacked Iavorskyi for preaching revisionism in his lectures at UIML by claiming that most members of the Ukrainian intelligentsia were not in fact kulak ideologists and that the Central Rada was not an organization of a kulak character. Zatonskyi, V., Nationalna problema na Ukraini (Kharkiv: DVU, 1927), pp. 68–72.Google Scholar
59. Sukhyno-Khomenko, V., “Z pryvodu osoblyvostei proletarskoi revoliutsii na Ukraini,” Litopys revoliutsii, 1928, no. 4, pp. 79–119.Google Scholar
60. Harin, M., “Iak ne treba pisaty istorii,” Litopys revoliutsii, 1928, no. 6, pp. 321–332.Google Scholar
61. Redkina, I., “Do pytannia pro osoblyvosty proletarskoi revoliutssi na Ukraini,” Litopys revoliutsii, 1928, no. 6, 333–350. Sukhyno-Khomenko, like many other historians, made occasional forays into literary criticism and was also attacked in 1928 by the critic Koriak for allegedly being a nationalist. See V. Koriak, “Iak marksyst Sukhyno-Khomenko ‘vziav’ marksysm Lenina,” Krytyka, 1928, no. 6, pp. 99–110.Google Scholar
62. Trudy Pervoi Vsesoiuznoi konferensii Istorikov-marksistov, I, pp. 448–452.Google Scholar
63. Gorin, P., review: Iavorskyi, M., Istoriia Ukrainy v styslomu narysi, Pravda, February 10, 1929, p. 5.Google Scholar
64. Gorin, P., “Pismo v redaktsiiu,” Istorik-marksist, XII (1929), pp. 334–335. Iavorskyi's defense, published in Prapor marksyzmu, 1929, no. 2, has not been available to me, but it was cited by Gorin who dismissed it as mere “literary polemics.” Iavorskyi's limited confession of error has also been unavailable to me but is cited by Korduba, Litterature Historique Sovietique-Ukrainienne, p. 166.Google Scholar
65. Skubitskii, T., review: Iavorskyi, M., Istoriia Ukrainy v styslomu narysi, Istorik-marksist, XII (1929), p. 285.Google Scholar
66. “Dyskusiia z pryvodu skhemy istorii Ukrainy M. Iavorskoho,” Litopys revoliutsii, 1930, no. 2, pp. 264–324. See especially Sukhyno-Khomenko's remarks, pp. 281–294.Google Scholar
67. Sukhyno-Khomenko, V., “Na marksystskomu istorychnomu fronti,” Bilshovyk Ukrainy, 1929, no. 17-18, pp. 42–55; no. 19, pp. 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68. “V oseredku Ukrainskoho Institutu Marksyzma-Leninizma. Postanova Biura Kharkivskoho Okruzhkomu KP(b)U vid 5-XII-29 roku. Zatverdzhena TsK KP(b)U 7-XII-1929 roku,” Visti VUTsVU, December 8, 1929, p. 3.Google Scholar
69. Skrypnyk, Mykola, “Pomylky ta vypravlennia akademika M. Iavorskoho,” Bilshovyk Ukrainy, 1930, no. 2, pp. 12–26.Google Scholar
70. “Rezoliutsiia, vynesennaia kollegiei Instituta istorii Kommunisticheskoi adademii po delu M. Iavorskogo,” Izvestiia, March 3, 1930, p. 4.Google Scholar
71. Kosior, S., “Pismo v redaktsii,” Pravda, April 6, 1930, p. 6.Google Scholar
72. Kulturne budivnytstvo v Ukrainskii RSR (Kiev: Derzhpolitvydav Ukrainy, 1959), I, p. 490.Google Scholar
73. Khyvlia, Andrii, Do rozviazannia natsionalnoho pytannia na Ukraini (Kharkiv: DVU, 1930), pp. 48–50.Google Scholar
74. Kulturne budivnytstvo v Ukrainskii RSR, I, pp. 540–544.Google Scholar
75. See Piontkovskii, S., “Velikoderzhavnye tendentsii v istoriografii Rosii,” Istorik-marksist, XVII (1930), pp. 21–26; Piontkovskii, S., “Velikorusskaia burzhauznaia istoriografiia poslednego desiatiletiia,” Istorik-marksist, XVIII-XIX (1930), 157-176. M. Iugov, “Polozhenie i zadachi istoricheskogo fronta v Belorussii,” Istorik-marksist, XVII (1930), pp. 42–50; L. Mamet, “Otrazheniia marksizma v burzhauznon vostokovedenii,” Istorik-marksist, XVII (1930), pp. 69–96.Google Scholar
76. Skubitskii, T., “Klassovaia borba v ukrainskoi istoricheskoi literature,” Istorik-marksist, XVII (1930), pp. 39–40.Google Scholar
77. Kostiuk, Hryhory, Stalinist Rule in the Ukraine: A Study in the Decade of Mass terror (1929-39) (London: Atlantic Books, 1960), pp. 51–53; Lowell Tillett, The Great Friendship: Soviet Historians on the Non-Russian Nationalities (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969), pp. 36–40; Robert S. Sullivant, Soviet Politics and the Ukraine, 1917–1956 (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1962), pp. 183–184, 197-198; O. M., “Ostanni roky zhyttia Mykhaila Hrushevskoho,” Nashi dni, II: 3 (March 1943), pp. 4–5; Hryhoryi Kostiuk, “Ostanni dny zhyttia adademyka M. Hrushevskoho (Za sovetskoiu presoiu i spohadamy suchasnykiv) 1934–1954,” Ukrainskyi zbirnyk, 1954, no. 1, pp. 83–84. The most authoritative attack on Hrushevskyi's historical ideas is A. Khvylia, “Burzhuazno-natsionalistychna trybuna,” Bilshovyk Ukrainy, 1931, no. 6, pp. 46–58; the most encyclopedic — M. A. Rubach, “Burzhuaznokurkulska natsionalistychna ideolohiia pid mashkaroiu demokratii ”trudovoho narodu',“ Chervonyi skliakh, 1932, no. 5-6, pp. 115–135, no. 7-8, pp. 118–126; no. 11-12, pp. 127–136.Google Scholar
78. On Russian nationalism in Soviet historiography, see Tillett, , The Great Friendship; Konstantin Shteppa, Russian Historians and the Soviet State (New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 1962), pp. 146–150, 169-177; Konstantin Shteppa, “The Lesser Evil Formula,” in Cyril E. Black, ed., Rewriting Russian History: Soviet Interpretations of Russia's Past (New York: Vintage Books, 1962), pp. 107–119; Erwin Oberländer, Sowjetpatriotismus und Geschichte: Dokumentation (Cologne: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik, 1967).Google Scholar