Ukrainian idea of the end of XVIII - early XIX century: historiographical understanding by domestic researchers

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Ukrainian idea of the end of XVIII - early XIX century: historiographical understanding by domestic researchers

Anatoliy Kotsur, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Ethnology and Local History, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

One of the important factors of national development is the historical memory of the people, accumulated in historiography. Here are reflected the actuality of the study of the Ukrainian idea of the end of the XVIII - beginning of the XIX century, its reflection in the domestic historiography. Scientists need, first of all, to rethink critically the whole array of modern literature, the concepts, that are show in it, thoughts and views, that contribute to the accumulation of historical knowledge, their further development and to revise emotional publications written at a low scientific level, that do not meet the requirements of time, the current state of historiographical theory and practice.

The creative heritage of figures, who stood at the origins of the process of Ukrainian national revival, developed theoretically the national idea, contributed to the active awakening and maturation of the national consciousness of Ukrainians are in the field of view of modern researchers.

The author used chronological-problematic, historical-comparative, system-structural, periodization, descriptive research methods in the article. The work is complex and interdisciplinary. Its conceptual foundations are based on the traditional sciences: history, political science, sociology, as well as on new ideas of the history of science, historiosophy, ethno-state studies.

Key words: Ukrainian idea, national idea, national consciousness, Ukrainian historiography, national revival, statehood, state school in historiography.

Українська ідея кінця XVIII - початку XIX ст.: історіографічне осмислення вітчизняними дослідниками

Анатолій Коцур доктор історичних наук, професор кафедри етнології та краєзнавства, Київський національний університет імені Тараса Шевченка

Одним із важливих чинників національного розвитку є історична пам'ять народу, акумульована в історіографії. Актуальним є дослідження української ідеї кінця XVIII - початку ХІХ ст., її відображення у вітчизняній історіографії. Науковцям необхідно, насамперед, критично переосмислити весь масив найновішої літератури, показати в ньому концепції, думки і погляди, які сприяють нагромадженню історичних знань, їх подальшому розвитку і ревізувати публікації емоційного характеру, написані на низькому науковому рівні, котрі не відповідають вимогам часу, сучасному стану історіографічної теорії та практики.

У полі зору сучасних дослідників творча спадщина діячів, які стояли біля витоків процесу українського національного відродження, теоретично розробляли національну ідею, сприяли своєю активною діяльністю пробудженню та визріванню національної свідомості українців.

У статті автор послуговувався хронологічно-проблемним, історико-порівняльним, системно-структурним, періодизації, описовим методами дослідження. Робота має комплексний і міждисциплінарний характер. Її концептуальні засади ґрунтуються на основі традиційних наук: історії, політології, соціології, а також на ідеях нових - історії наук, історіософії, ет- нодержавознавства.

Ключові слова: українська ідея, національна ідея, національна свідомість, українська історіографія, національне відродження, державність, державницька школа в історіографії.

In modern domestic historiography, the most common concept is the one that connects (and periodizes) the Ukrainian national idea with the main stages of the Ukrainian national revival, which chronologically covers the end of the XVIII - beginning of the XIX centuries [1-3; 10; 18]. Accordingly, this is the noble and modernist epoch of I. Lysiak-Rudnytsky [11, p. 5]; scientific, organizational and political stages of P. Magochiy [12, p. 101]; aristocratic-noble, miscellaneous-populist and national stages in V. Sarbey [16, p. 6-9].

Exploring the methodological aspect of Ukrainian romantic historiography, S. Legeza points out, that the romanticism of the late XVIII - early XIX centuries served as ideological substantiation of cultural and national revival, the idea of nationality, identity, cultural and historical longevity of the Ukrainian people [10, p. 14]. Three types of scientific activity (linguistic, ethnographic, historical) of Ukrainian romantics played a decisive role in the process of formation of Ukrainian romantic historiography and ideology in the conditions of statelessness, absence of a network of national cultural and public institutions and educational establishments [10, p. 13].

V. Borysenko criticizes the views on the Ukrainian national idea as one that was initiated by the intelligentsia of the Romantic era, by the Ukrainian followers of I. Herder and V. Karadzhych [1, p. 13]. V Borysenko notes, that attempts to describe the phenomenon of the state school of Ukrainian historiography of the XVIII - early XIX centuries exclusively through the prism of terminology and historical realities of the Ukrainian national revival, are methodologically incorrect: 1) they do not fully take into account the rather peculiar features of the previous stages of the Ukrainian state and nation-genesis; 2) they neglect the quite obvious fact, that it was in the activity of the certain currents (primarily populist), that the Ukrainian idea began to lose some essential features of the national one [2, p. 58].

The desire to explain the reasons for the weakness of the Ukrainian movement of XIX-XX centuries prompted researchers, if not to revise the content of the most traditional editions of the Ukrainian national idea, then, in any case, to revise the chronological framework of its genesis [9; 15; 19]. That is why the state school of Ukrainian historiography of the XVIII - early XIX centuries, founded by highly educated officials of the Hetman's government (by military chancellors of the General Military Chancellery), which manifested its political credo in the «Conversation between Little Russia and Great Russia» by S. Divovych and was ended by the genial «History of the Rus people» [2, p. 59], was not deprived of the attention of historians. More broadly, we are talking about the so-called autonomist movement, represented by a patriotic aristocracy. The state historiographical school was mentioned as the ideological speaker of this movement.

O. Ogloblyn thought, that Mykhaylo Hrushevsky was the first, who evaluated the literature of military clerks as a fundamentally new phenomenon in domestic historiography. According to M. Hrushevsky, this new Cossack intelligentsia replaced the Kyiv spiritual representatives of the first half of the XVIII century and all-Russian preachers of the second half of the century: it was preparing the Ukrainian national revival of the XIX century [13, p. 32]. O. Ogloblyn held the opinion, that the history of the Ukrainian revival should be studied not from the «Aeneid» of I. Kotliarevsky, but from the historiography and all socio-political thoughts of the second half of the XVIII century, especially 1780-1790 [13, p. 32-33].

O. Pritsak, in contrast to M. Hrushevsky, does not identify the entire state historiographical school of the XVIII century with the works of military chancellors (they laid the foundation of the new Ukrainian worldview only ), and the beginning of the clerical literature dates back to an earlier time (because the authors of the Cossack chronicles came from their environment). O. Pritsak connects the heyday of the clerks' activity with the «Hlukhiv period» of the history of Ukraine, when the state thought of this «secular intellectual elite» went beyond the rethinking of national history and touched on a variety of problems from the modification of Ukrainian law («The law by which the Little Russian people are judged») to understanding the philosophical foundations of political liberalism (the work of Ya. Kozelsky) [14, p. 62-66].

Regarding the state school in the Ukrainian his- tonography of the XVIII - beginning of the XX century (as well as the autonomous movement of the Ukrainian aristocracy, which was hidden behind this school), it is recognized and described by modern scholars, but has not been properly explained both in its essence and place in the Ukrainian movement and in terms of its causes yet.

Despite all attempts to connect this phenomenon with the next epoch of national revival (whether after M. Hrushevsky to declare it the predecessor of the national revival, or its real beginning after O. Ogloblin), the obvious impossibility of such an explanation is striking. After all, the national revival is a pan-European phenomenon and has its own origins, patterns and periodization. Since the phenomenon of the state school of Ukrainian historiography arose before the development of the pan-European epoch of national revival, it can be considered neither as a predecessor nor as the beginning of national revival in Ukraine. In addition, we can agree with V. Borysenko, that it is impossible to deny the absence of ideological heredity of two currents of the Ukrainian movement: if the aristocratic-state current (XVIII - early XIX centuries) developed and substantiated comprehensively the idea of Ukrainian statehood, the representatives of another current (Ukrainian national revival of the late XVIII - early XIX centuries) ignored openly the question of statehood as the key issue of any national movement [2, p. 60]. Autonomous theories (since the Kyiv Masons of the early XIX century to the first universals of the Central Rada) testify not so much about the development of the Ukrainian national-state idea as about the fascination of their authors with slavophilism and theoretical republicanism, socialism and so on.

Yu. Bachynsky, who theoretically substantiated the inevitability of the emergence of the Ukrainian state, and the author of the program concept of this state, M. Mikhnovsky, remained in the annoying minority with their ideas.

Domestic historiography gives several explanations for the reasons for its appearance and the essence of the nobility-state current in the Ukrainian movement of the XVIII - early XIX centuries, which can be reduced to three general concepts. The first can be defined conditionally as the concept of betrayal (national or social) of a Cossack officers and is typical for the populist school of Ukrainian historiography [6, p. 431; 5, p. 27]. The origins of this concept lie in the ideas of the circle of Kharkiv romantics [10, p. 10-12]. Representatives of the Ukrainian renaissance shared with their foreign colleagues the common methodological errors: here are substituting the concept of nation as the category of ethnic group and the definition of ethnicity as a linguistic and cultural community.

Not surprisingly, the application of confusing methodology to the analysis of contradictory Ukrainian realities of the XVIII century gave impressive results: the Ukrainian nation (actually it was an ethnic group) consists of peasants, because its elite is Russified (Left Bank) or Polonized (Right Bank). M. Kostomarov, as a member of the Kharkiv circle, translated this fantastic idea from the cultural-national area to the political one. According to O. Prytsak, M. Kostomarov's fascination with the French historical school of the Restoration era contributed a lot to its idea, that «real history is the history not of the state, but of the people» [14, p. 63]. Soviet historiography did not accept the idea of the peasant nation, but in assessing the studied aristocratic-state movement, it completely repeated (in somewhat simplified forms) the concept of the populist school [8, p. 320].

The second concept explains the actualization of the idea of Ukrainian Cossack statehood by the clash of two bureaucracies: the imperial and the hetman. Defending the right of the Ukrainian «Cossack people» to statehood, the hetman's bureaucracy defended its existence. According to V. Borysenko, such an approach has a certain rationality, as it explains why Glukhiv of the first half of the XVIII century became the center of a new Ukrainian worldview: the confrontation between the two bureaucracies was most acute and total here [2, p. 62]. However, this approach is not free from simplification, it is not possible to describe and explain many facts (in particular, the reasons for the strengthening of the Ukrainian opposition in the late XVIII - early XIX centuries, motives of patriotism of Ukrainian landowners and Ukrainian high-ranking imperial officials, etc.).

Majority of modern scientists try to utilize history of noble state movement in XVIII - the beginning of XX centuries for their conceptions when they consider issue of emergence and development of Ukrainian national conscience. According to Volodymyr Borysenko, useless ideologization of ethnic and national issue and also traditional mixing of ethnicity and nation concepts are mistaken in Ukrainian science (in Ukraine and also in diasporas) [2, p. 63]. He thinks approach to the issue is based on resolute separation of natiogenesis from ethnogenesis as radically different phenomenons but that simultaneously can influence to each other. Formula «nation is ethnicity that has statehood» expresses only concrete theoretical possibility that can get practical realization if we have coincidence of large numbers of circumstances. Modern conception of nation appeared from theoretical popular sovereignty and it has been realized during democratic revolutions as self-determination of nations. Nation is people who are subject of making a country, it's people who are the bearer of sovereignty. Important feature of national conception is its absolute universalism. National always is universal: nation coveres all people; national country exercises sovereignty of all people; national interests are common for the nation; national idea integrates all people meaning the nation. And in contrast ethnic always is special.

Awareness of national interests is at the heart of essence national conscience phenomenon. Only common economic interest due to functioning of national economy, place and role of national economy in system of international distribution of labour and political, geopolitical and other issues is universal between large number of group, cultural, religious and other particle interests.

Ukrainian national conscience (since XV - XVI centuries) was formed due to important facts: formation of commodity-market relationship, social-economic shift and formation of national market which may be seen as starting moment of natiogenesis. The National Liberation war middle of XVII century had great influence on growth of people national conscience. High level of spontaneous development of Ukrainian conscience whilst underdevelopment of it in ideological issue is result of active events in the second half of the XVII century. In other words, common awareness of fact existence of Ukrainian interests needed concrete conceptions of real protection of these interests. First of all, state historiography XVIII - the beginning of XIX centuries took over doctrinal processing of Ukrainian national conscience.

The Ukrainian aristocracy from gentry and Cossack elders was the main object of Ukrainian national economy and active participant of commodity-market relationship. It has taken over these functions because development of the national bourgeoisie was insufficient and therefore, according to F. Brodel, not being capitalists on formal grounds, it was on service in the capitalism of Amsterdam or some other tool and ally, it was part of the European capitalist system [4, p. 224]. Ukrainian aristocracy had objectively turned into the main advisor of national conscience having taken over protection of national interests. On the other side, exactly active advocacy of national interests in the most various forms as a result of some circumstances makes idea of so-called autonomous Ukrainian movement (or noble state movement).

In the last years Ukrainian historian have been revising place and role of noble state movement XVIII - the beginning of XIX centuries in Ukrainian national movement [3, p. 320, 343-345, 364; 17, p. 267-270, 303-314]. Scientists see Ukrainian aristocracy at this period as a founder of this movement. Exactly it as the main subject of Ukrainian economy became spokesman of Ukrainian national interests and conceptually made Ukrainian national ideology as protection of Ukrainian national interests in Russian Empire. Stay of Ukraine in Russian Empire is seen as temporary phenomenon. Concrete formed idea from «History of Ruthenians» that independent national country is the main worth for Ukrainian people reflects this [7, p. 104, 136, 138]. Valerii Smolii and Valerii Stepankov highlight exactly it impacted (in one or other forms) on development of Ukrainian national idea during the first half of 19^th century and continued to be a strong impetus for development of national conscience of Ukrainian people who didn't have their country [17, p. 313-314].

So, formation and development of Ukrainian idea at the turn of the XVIII - XIX centuries were difficult and controversial. This was due to extremely difficult fate of Ukrainian people, significant obstacles on the way of formation of national conscience, prosecution of those who try to raise national issue in conditions of stay in alien country. But people who have lived in territory of Ukraine for a long time and has overcome difficulties have realized that they are separate community from another ethnic groups, they make their worldview where one of the main places is taken by ideas of own roots, own history and fate, own point of view for their destiny, own future, own understanding of ways to achieve the goal, as nation who are decent to be one of the biggest European nations.

Ukrainian idea got concrete way, additional characteristics, changed priorities depending on concrete historical circumstance. But desire of Ukrainian people for handling of own lives, own fate, being free, independent, sovereign national community has been permanent independent of any circumstances.

national idea historiography ukrainian

Sources and literature

1. Борисенко В.А. Глухів як колиска українського нацiоналiзму (До питання про витоки i дєякі параметри української національної ідеї). Історико-культурна спадщина Глухівщини: Матеріали міжвуз. наук.-практ. конф., присв. 1000-річчю м. Глухова. Глухів, 1992. С. 8-16.

2. Борисенко В. А. До проблеми соціально-економічних факторів феномену державницької школи української історіографії XVIII - початку XIX ст. Глухів і Глухівщина в історії українського національного відродження: Матеріали наук. конф., 28-29 травня 1998 р., м. Глухів Сумської обл. Київ: ТнЮра, 1999. С. 58-69.

3. Борисенко В. Й. Курс української історії: З найдавніших часів до XX століття. Київ: Либідь, 1996. 616 с.

4. Бродель Ф. Матеріальна цивілізація, економіка і капіталізм XV-XVIII ст. Київ: Основи, 1997. Т 2. 326 с.

5. Грушевский М.С. Очерк истории украинского народа. Киев: Лыбидь, 1991. 400 с.

6. Драгоманов М. Листи на Наддніпрянську Україну. Драгоманов М.П. Літературно-публіцистичні праці у двох томах. Київ: Наук. думка, 1970. Т 1. 513 с.

7. Історія Русів / Укр. пер. I. Драча; вступ. сл. В. Шевчука. Київ: Рад. письменник, 1991. 318 с.

8. Історія Української РСР: У 2-х т Київ: Наук. думка, 1967. Т 1. 807 с.

9. Кириченко В. Українська національна ідея та розбудова української державності. Розбудова держави. 1993. № 9. С. 36-42.

10. Легеза С.В. Романтизм і українська історіографія: методологічний аспект: автореф. дис. . ..канд. іст. наук: 07.00.06. Дніпропетровськ, 1998. 16 с.

11. Лисяк-Рудницький I. Нариси з історії нової України. Львів, 1995. 102 с.

12. Магочій П. Українське національне відродження. Нова аналітична структура. Український історичний журнал. 1991. № 3. С. 97-107.

13. Оглоблин О. П. Люди старої України. Українська культура. 1991. № 4. С. 28-36.

14. Пріцак О. Доба військових канцеляристів. Київська старовина. 1993. № 4. С. 62-66.

15. Рудакевич О. Богдан Хмельницький і українська національна ідея. Сучасність. 1997. № 1. С. 70-75.

16. Сарбей В.Г. Формування української національної свідомості. Український історичний журнал. 1993. № 8. С. 3-17.

17. Смолій В.А., Степанков В.С. Українська державна ідея XVII-XVIII століть: проблеми формування, еволюції, реалізації. Київ: Альтернативи, 1997. 368 с.

18. Українська національна ідея. Бюлетень Всеукраїнського наукового та професійного товариства ім. М. Міхновського. Київ, 1998. № 4. Вип. 6. С. 17-83.

19. Хамітов Н. Україна: національна міфологія та національна ідея. Розбудова держави. 1994. № 1. С. 28-34.

References

1. Borysenko V.A. (1992). Gluhiv jak kolyska ukrai'ns'kogo nacionalizmu (Do pytannja pro vytoky i dejaki parametry ukrai'ns'koi' nacional'noi' idei') [Hlukniv as a cradle of Ukrainian nationalism (To issue of the beginning and some factors of Ukrainian national idea)]. Istoryko-kul'turna spadshhyna Gluhivshhyny [Historical and cultural heritage of Hlukniv region]: Materialy mizhvuz. nauk.-prakt. konf., prysv. 1000-richchju m. Gluhova. Gluhiv, 8-16.

2. Borysenko V.A. (1999). Do problemy social'no-ekonomichnyh faktoriv fenomenu derzhavnyc'koi' shkoly ukrai'ns'koi' istoriografii' XVIII - pochatku XIX st. [To issue of social and economic factors of phenomenon state school of Ukrainian historiography 18^th -the beginning of 19^th centuries]. Gluhiv і Gluhivshhyna v istorii ' ukrai'ns'kogo nacional'nogo vidrodzhennja [Hlukniv and its region in history of Ukrainian national revival]: Materialy nauk. konf., 28-29 travnja 1998 r., m. Gluhiv Sums'koi' obl. Kyi'v: InJura, 58-69.

3. Borysenko V.J. (1996). Kurs ukrai'ns'koi' istorii': Z najdavnishyh chasiv do XX stolittja [Course of Ukrainian history: from the oldest times to 20^th century]. Kyi'v: Lybid', 616.

4. Brodel' F (1997). Material'na cyvilizacija, ekonomika i kapitalizm XV-XVIII st. [Material civilization, economy and capitalism 15^th-18^th centuries]. Kyi'v: Osnovy, 2, 326.

5. Grushevskyj M.S. (1991). Ocherk istorii ukrainskogo naroda [Essay on the history of Ukrainian people]. Kyev: Lybid, 400.

6. Dragomanov M. (1970). Lysty na Naddniprjans'ku Ukrai'nu [Letters to Dnipro Ukraine]. Dragomanov M.P. Literaturno-publicystychni praci u dvoh tomah [Drahomanov M.P. publicistic and literary papers in 2 tomes]. Kyi'v: Nauk. dumka, 1, 513.

7. (1991). Istorija Rusiv [History of Ruthenians]. Ukr. per. I. Dracha; vstup. sl. V Shevchuka. Kyi'v: Rad. pys'mennyk, 318.

8. (1967). Istorija Ukrai'ns'koi' RSR [History of Ukrainian SSR]: U 2-h t. Kyi'v: Nauk. dumka, 1, 807.

9. Kyrychenko V. (1003). Ukrai'ns'ka nacional'na ideja ta rozbudova ukrai'ns'koi' derzhavnost i[Ukrainian national idea and development of Ukrainian state]. Rozbudova derzhavy [Development of state], 9, 36-42.

10. Legeza S.V. (1998). Romantyzm i ukrai'ns'ka istoriografija: metodologichnyj aspekt [Romanticism and Ukrainian historiography: Methodological aspect]: avtoref. dys. ...kand. ist. nauk: 07.00.06. Dnipropetrovs'k, 16.

11. Lysjak-Rudnyc'kyj I. (1995). Narysy z istorii' novoi' Ukrai'ny [Essay on the history of new Ukraine]. L'viv, 102.

12. Magochij P. (1991). Ukrai'ns'ke nacional'ne vidrodzhennja. Nova analitychna struktura [Ukrainian national emergence. New analytic structure]. Ukrai'ns'kyj istorychnyj zhurnal [Ukrainian historical magazine], 3, 97-107.

13. Ogloblyn O.P. (1991). Ljudy staroi' Ukrai'ny [People of old Ukraine]. Ukrai'ns'ka kul 'tura [Ukrainian culture], 4, 28-36.

14. Pricak O. (1993). Doba vijs'kovyh kanceljarystiv [Period of military chancellors]. Kyi'vs'ka starovyna [Kyivska starovyna], 4, 62-66.

15. Rudakevych O. (1997). Bogdan Hmel'nyc'kyj i ukrai'ns'ka nacional'na ideja [Bohdan Khmelnitskyi and Ukrainian national idea]. Suchasnist' [Sychasnis], 1, 70-75.

16. Sarbej V.G. (1993). Formuvannja ukrai'ns'koi' nacional'noi' svidomosti [Formation of Ukrainian national awareness]. Ukrai'ns'kyj istorychnyj zhurnal [Ukrainian historical magazine], 8, 3-17.

17. Smolij V.A., Stepankov V.S. (1997). Ukrai'ns'ka derzhavna ideja XVII-XVIII stolit': problemy formuvannja, evoljucii', realizacii' [Ukrainian state idea 17^th-18^th centuries: problems of formation, evolution and realization]. Kyi'v: Al'ternatyvy, 368.

18. (1998). Ukrai'ns'ka nacional'na ideja [Ukrainian national idea]. Bjuleten' Vseukrai'ns'kogo naukovogo taprofesijnogo tovarystva im. M. Mihnovs'kogo [Bulletin of All-Ukrainian scientific and professional community the M. Mikhnovskyi], 4, 6, 17-83.

19. Hamitov N. (1994). Ukrai'na: nacional'na mifologija ta nacional'na ideja [Ukraine: national mythology and national idea]. Rozbudova derzhavy [Development of country], 1, 28-34.

Размещено на Allbest.ru