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