Social functions of historical science in the visions of M. Hrushevsky and V. Lypynskyi: an attempt at a historiographical comparison

Abstract

Abstract. Introduction. One of the intellectual innovations of the modern era, which appeared at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, was the neo-romantic theory. Its variant in Ukrainian historiography was the statist trend with its elitism, the priority of national-political ideology over science, the heroization of history, and the hyperbolization of the personal factor. It was the historians-statesmen, starting with V. Lypinsky, in contrast to the scientific-positivist instructions of the followers of M. Hrushevsky’s school, who put the needs of a strengthening national organism to the fore when studying the past. Therefore, the main task was declared to be the formation and awakening of national self-awareness through the demonstration of «glorious» events of the national history, focusing attention on its «heroic» periods. For the first time, the difference in views on the social functions of historical science between supporters of these views was noted during the discussion of the popular science work of M. Arkas «History of Ukraine-Rus».

The article aims to clarify the features of the definition of the social functions of historical science by M. Hrushevsky and V. Lypinskyi, which were heard in the discussion around the «History of Ukraine-Rus» by M. Arkas.

Results. In the reviews of M. Hrushevsky and V. Lypynskyi on M. Arkas’s «History of Ukraine-Rus», for the first time in Ukrainian historiography, the methodological difference between classical scientific ideas about historical science and new neo-romantic approach was clearly pronounced. It is noteworthy that the discussion revolved around the social roles of historiography, because Ukrainian intellectuals faced the primary task of activating the «national instinct». In this discussion, two views on the problem of the functioning of historical science in society were clearly defined. The first, positivist, implemented in the writings of M. Hrushevsky, advocated the priority of strict scientific requirements over any political and ideological intentions. The second, neo-romantic, presented by the views of V. Lypynskyi and his like-minded colleagues, on the contrary, understood the national and political-ideological moment as defining, sense-making in the reconstruction of the past. The discussion between supporters of these views contributed to the development and self-reflection of national science and encouraged historians to delve into the theoretical foundations of their profession, thereby introducing Ukrainian humanitarianism into the European historiographical space.

Originality. The article comprehensively elucidates for the first time the differences between the vision of M. Hrushevsky and V. Lypynskyi of the social functions of historical science.

Conclusion. The axiological convictions of M. Hrushevsky and V. Lypynskyi turned out to be important for domestic historiography not only in the context of the discussion analyzed above, they remain unanimous also in relation to modern trends in world historiography.