“We Must Remember That We Are Representing A Great Nation”

The most complete illustrated history of the outstanding politician and historian Mykhailo Hrushevsky, which until now has been part of Kyiv’s Mykhailo Hrushevsky Historical Memorial Museum, is now on display in Lviv, at the local Mykhailo Hrushevsky Museum. This cultural event would not be of major importance, but for the fact that the Hrushevsky family home at 9 Pankivska St. in Kyiv, which is on the verge of total collapse, has yet to be restored. In contrast, the museum in Lviv is in good hands. The building has been restored and carefully preserved. The state funded the restoration project, but most importantly a number of people rallied around the project, among them relatives of the Hrushevsky family, scholars, and ordinary citizens, all of whom were determined to help raise the political figure of Hrushevsky to the deserved level. Their contributions made up almost 95% of the current exposition.

That was one of the reasons why Kyiv sent its complete photo exhibit to Lviv in the first place, considering that most of the items on display are unique, with no copies in existence. Another reason is that the museum staff was aware that putting together a display consisting only of photographs and making it attractive to visitors is a very complicated task. Such exhibits have specific requirements, including the right kind of premises (which requirement was fulfilled very professionally); this kind of exhibit must be not only informative, but also current, meaning that it should serve as a bridge spanning past and present.

This bridge has turned into a huge structure, as Hrushevsky is considered the first President of Ukraine. Even if this year’s election campaign coincided with the Academy, Lviv’s traditional annual conference (the exhibit opened on the first day of this scholarly meeting), more attention was focused on scholarly matters. However, certain facts should be recalled.

In February 1917 the Central Rada, whose members represented Ukrainian socialist parties and related volunteer organizations, elected Mykhailo Hrushevsky Rada Chairman in absentia. This post publicly and legally confirmed his position as leader of the national democratic movement. On March 19 he led a huge rally in Kyiv, where he gave a speech, as shown in a photo on display. Other photos portray subsequent events. Hrushevsky insisted on holding genuine elections, so a congress of delegates representing the peoples of the former Russian empire was held in September. Mykola Hrushevsky was unanimously voted Chairman of the Central Rada. Dmytro Doroshenko wrote in his History of Ukraine: “No one at the time could be a better national leader than Hrushevsky; no one would even try to challenge his authority and respect among the Ukrainian citizenry.” Of course, Hrushevsky is a controversial figure; some of his contemporaries claimed he did not understand the situation or was unable to carry out his major tasks — this is perhaps the reason why restoration work is still underway at the memorial museum in Kyiv. In fact, the restoration project is likely to be delayed even further unless a lot of changes are introduced in our long-suffering country. By and large, the point is not our attitude to Hrushevsky, but our attitude at this critical juncture to all those historical figures whose dedicated efforts helped Ukraine declare itself a full-fledged polity long before achieving independence.

No one will disagree that the current period is momentous; all the more reason to recall the words of Hrushevsky, who wrote that Ukrainian society had to shed its servile spirit and learn to respect itself, if its members wanted to live like normal humans and enjoy their fellow humans’ respect.

We asked several scholars participating in the Academy ceremony, commemorating the 100th anniversary of Hrushevsky’s visit to Halychyna, to comment on their attitude to the man.

Mariya MAHUN, director of the Mykhailo Hrushevsky Memorial Museum in Lviv:

A young professor by the name of Mykhailo Hrushevsky came from Kyiv to Lviv to head the newly founded Second Department of Universal History, with a special focus on the history of Eastern Europe at Lviv University. The renowned and established historian Volodymyr Antonovych recommended the promising scholar. The efforts that had been made by Ukrainian citizens were crowned with success; now they had a professor versed in Ukrainian history. After his first lecture, the newspaper Dilo (The Deed) wrote: “It was the first time the Ruthenians heard such a nice rendition of their national history given from an academic rostrum in their beautiful mother tongue.” Mykhailo Hrushevsky’s subsequent scholarly endeavors took several major directions: (a) developing the Taras Shevchenko Scientific Society, which under Hrushevsky’s able guidance would become an unofficial academy of sciences; (b) organizing and advancing the Ukrainian-Rus’ Publishing Association, set up at his initiative, and (c) selecting and training young Ukrainian historians from among the university students, who would eventually establish the Hrushevsky History School of Lviv and would represent Ukrainian national historiography in a laudable fashion.

Hrushevsky’s Istoriya Ukrayiny-Rusy (History of Ukraine-Rus’), Iliustrovana istoriya Ukrayiny (Illustrated History of Ukraine), numerous books and articles published under his editorship allow us to appreciate his titanic work. Dmytro Doroshenko correctly noted that Hrushevsky’s arrival in Halychyna marked “an era in its cultural and national life.” Hrushevsky did his duty toward the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian state.

We are pleased to learn that the annual Academy held in honor of Hrushevsky has become another worthy tradition; that these events are attended by people from different parts of Ukraine and other countries; that papers are submitted and scholarly discussions are held; that people can communicate on such occasions, acting in accordance with Hrushevsky’s admonition: “We do not claim to be creating something that will last for centuries; we should rather make sure we do something required of us at present, to meet our current demands, and do so to the best of our ability.”

Liubomyr WYNAR, Chairman, World Scholarly Council, World Congress of Ukrainians, Chairman, Ukrainian Historical Association

All his adult life Mykhailo Hrushevsky was a selfless exponent of the Ukrainian national movement. He played an extremely important role in the consolidation of Ukrainian democratic forces in the early twentieth century. What is more, Hrushevsky was a symbol of Ukrainian unity; he understood this as consolidating all parts of the Ukrainian nation united in a single nation-state, a single national-cultural system. His political life culminated in the proclamation of the Ukrainian National Republic toward the end of 1917. It is hard to say whether he was more of a scholar than a politician. He wrote, “I came to politics through history, and I consider this normal...” Personally, I am positive that, given an opportunity to appear in a televised campaign debate, Hrushevsky would have looked and sounded spectacularly eloquent and convincing. He was a true democrat who allowed himself no excesses, let alone any campaign stunts. He would have found it necessary to state a plan of action for a better Ukrainian future, and it wouldn’t be difficult for him. Suffice it to say that Hrushevsky was directly involved in drafting and ratifying all four Universals [decrees] of the Central Rada, marking important milestones on the historical road. Whereas the Third Universal, adopted on Nov. 7, 1917, proclaimed Ukraine as part of Federated Russia, the Fourth Universal (adopted Jan. 11, 1918, with Communist troops advancing on Kyiv) envisaged complete Ukrainian national independence. It is also a fact that Hrushevsky and his political comrades-in-arms managed to provide Ukraine with all the attributes of polity — e.g., a constitution, national emblem, national flag, and currency within a remarkably short period. That was a staggering amount of work, but they did it.

We publish articles on Hrushevsky and his creative activities in the magazine Ukrayinsky Istoryk (The Ukrainian Historian), which was established in 1966, on his 100th birthday. The latest, 39th, issue carried a very interesting article by the head of the Central Rada, entitled “At the Turning Point.” I will take the liberty of quoting several lines that seem especially topical today:

“At present, I would least of all be inclined to allow the possibility of an unprincipled, immoral, light-minded approach, as well as loose morals. On the contrary, I believe that the current stage of our Ukrainian life requires high morals, a Spartan awareness of one’s duty, a degree of asceticism, even heroism from the Ukrainian citizenry. Those failing to meet these requirements are not worthy of the great times we are experiencing. Those wishing to become worthy citizens must find such moral strength in themselves.”

Yaroslav ISAYEVYCH, Academician, member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, director, Krypyakevych Institute of Ukrainian Studies:

Hrushevsky was a very principled individual, who refused to steer a middle course even when this seemed most practical and expedient. His sense of personal responsibility toward his nation was boundless. Hrushevsky always championed decency, sincerity, and honesty, while sharply condemning electoral campaign transgressions on the part of the contemporary Polish administration.

It is hard to visualize his conduct under modern conditions, but it is clear that he would not have treated socialism the way some of our current politicians do, juggling with various socialist notions, never for a moment considering the common, national good — all those notions Hrushevsky held dear.

For quite some time he believed that the Ukrainian peasants were the motivating force, and it was really so at the beginning of the national liberation movement, because the Ukrainian peasants was the most powerful force supporting the Central Rada. In the early years of Ukrainization, he firmly believed that his people’s social ideals could be implemented under the Soviet regime in Ukraine; that the Ukrainian Soviet Republic would be a genuine Ukrainian national state. His disillusionment was very quick and very bitter.

Hrushevsky was an optimist. I don’t know what happened to his optimism when he was thrown behind GPU bars — we will never know — but I am sure that his illusions suffered a devastating fiasco.

Oleh ROMANIV, Academician, member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, head of the Taras Shevchenko Scientific Society:

Hrushevsky cuts an ideal figure as president, a great one that could serve as a standard in modern political life. He was wholeheartedly dedicated to his nation; he wasn’t self-serving, in contrast to what we constantly observe in our political elite, unfortunately. Here people seek power and are determined to keep it so they can preserve and multiply their wealth.

Without a doubt, he was not a refined career politician; he was a scholar in the first place, but there was no political leader with greater authority and popularity under the circumstances. He had a clear concept of what Ukraine needed, but he lacked a clear understanding of what treacherous techniques that those opposing Ukrainian statehood could and would resort to. By and large, he was idealistic and romantic. Regrettably, he failed to realize the need to organize defenses to protect his revolution. Vladimir Lenin, in contrast, knew full well what tools to use to seize power. Hrushevsky could be reproached for this, of course, but his ideal pattern of statehood, power, and well-being was the product of a noble mind. It would be good if Ukraine’s future presidents read Hrushevsky’s works and inherited his high moral standard, something we need so badly these days.

Hrushevsky’s concept of the people and their might as a single productive force that should be made self-sufficient in Ukraine as a solid national state remains very topical.

Getting back to the time when Hrushevsky joined Lviv University, there were some 4,000-5,000 Ukrainian students, and they all wanted to have a Ukrainian university. More than a hundred students were arrested during a rally demanding Ukrainian as the language of instruction, when a student named Adam Kotska was killed. I examined the lists of those under arrest and saw the names of future revolutionary leaders, then students with a way of thinking mature enough to construct state- building concepts. Regrettably, I do not see our modern students as being capable of forming such a strong political force, a motivating force — no, I don’t mean revolution, God forbid! We don’t need another revolution. I mean a social force strong enough to build a morally solid polity. I think that our students must get involved in this struggle intellectually, culturally, and spiritually.