Advertisement

Abstract

In 1947, W. Konopczynski observed that historiography would not be “scientific” if it did not pose research questions, or look for truth in the struggle with illusions, or progress methodologically. He continued:

Neither is the evolution of historiography dependent on changes in the prevailing view of the past; optimism or pessimism concerning one’s ancestors, the sins or merits of kings, estates, the entire nation, or the triumph of some idea regarded today or in the past as holy—all of this will always actively concern the historian, but progress in historiography is not dependent on the dominance of certain tendencies, or political preconceptions or philosophical observation. It lies in deepening [inquiry] into problems, sharpening critical thought and extracting facts from sources and secondary materials….

Of course, let each generation write its own history, but not from nothing because history would stop being a science when father, son, and grandson no longer shared one truth.1

Keywords

Survey History National History National Movement National Liberation Official View 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    W. Konopczyński, “Dzieje nauki historycznej w Polsce,” PP 228 (1949): 27, 158.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Cywiński, Zatruta humanistyka (Warsaw, 1980).Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    W. Serczyk, Hajdamacy (Krakow, 1972), p. 7Google Scholar
  4. 8.
    T. Chynczewska-Hennel’s Świadomość narodowa szlachty ukraińskiej i Kozaczyzny od połowy XVI dopolowy XVII wieku (Warsaw, 1985) sparked a sharp exchange of opinions. See PH, no. 2 (1986): 331–51; 1987, no. 3, pp. 533–56. The debate included reference to Polish work on early-modern Ukraine published between 1982 and 1987. Also see the special issue of Znak, no. 395 (1988) and Slavia Orientalis, nos. 3–4 (1989), and nos. 1–2 (1990).Google Scholar
  5. 9.
    S.A. Piontkovsky, Burzhuaznaia istoricheskaia nauka v Rossii (Moscow, 1931), pp. 19, 94.Google Scholar
  6. An example of what Piontkovsky was criticizing is provided by B. D. Grekov’s Feodalnye otnosheniia v kievskom gosudarstve (Moscow, 1936), pp. 16–17;Google Scholar
  7. and Grekov, Kievskaia Rus (Moscow, 1939), p. 9. In the first book Grekov compared Kievan Rus to Charlemagne’s empire, because three nations traced their roots from each polity. In the second he added that the “Russian nation,” which he now used as a synonym for Eastern Slavs, had played the “leading role” in the political successes of the Kievan state.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    R. Szporluk, “The Ukraine and Russia,” in The Last Empire, ed. R. Conquest (Stanford, 1988), pp. 151–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Stephen Velychenko 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Velychenko

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations