OPEN LETTER TO UKRAINIAN HISTORIANS ON THE COMMEMORATION OF THE PEREIASLAV COUNCIL
06/23/2002 | Serhiy Hrysch
Dear Colleagues,
We address ourselves to you in response to the decree of the president of
Ukraine dated 13 March 2002 "On the Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary
of the Pereiaslav Cossack Council of 1654." The decree's contents, as well
as the membership of the organizing committee, indicate the serious nature
and breadth of scope of the intended undertaking. The 2004 commemoration of
the Pereiaslav Council, if actually carried out according to the plan
outlined in the decree, will not, of course, equal the scale of the 300th
anniversary "commemoration" in 1954, but will significantly outdo the 325th
anniversary "commemoration" of 1979. The previous anniversaries were
commemorated in Ukraine as a constituent of the Soviet Union; this new
"commemoration" is to take place in independent Ukraine. The main feature
that seems to distinguish the proposed 2004 event from those of 1954 and
1979 is the use of the more neutral term "commemoration" in the 2002 decree
as opposed to the previous Communist Party-prescribed term "celebration." In
the main, the Soviet tradition of fawning before Moscow and the "elder
brother" is being continued.
Do the authors of the decree and members of the organizing committee not
understand that they are preparing to commemorate the anniversary of an
event that led to the abolition of the independent Ukrainian state formed
under Bohdan Khmelnytsky's leadership? The March decree calls into question
not only the historical legitimacy of Ukraine's current independence, but
also the official genealogy of the Ukrainian government. That government's
traditions go back to Ukraine's first president, Mykhailo Hrushevsky, who
regarded Pereiaslav as a mistake and declared an "end to [our] orientation
on Moscow" in1918. The decree also calls into question Ukraine's official
declarations in favour of European integration. When it comes to the
historical calendar, the decree ignores the 750th anniversary of Prince
Danylo's coronation (symbolizing Ukraine's orientation on the West) in 2003,
but "commemorates" the 350th anniversary of the Pereiaslav Council, which
marked the beginning of the Russian Empire's westward expansion. Will the
"commemoration" of Pereiaslav be followed by similar elaborate
"commemorations" of the Ukrainian-Swedish alliance of 1656, the Hadiach
Agreement of 1658, or Ivan Mazepa's break ("betrayal," in official Soviet
terminology) with Moscow in 1708? The answer to this question will be given,
most likely, during the presidential elections of 2004, for which the
"commemoration" of Pereiaslav is undoubtedly intended to set the tone.
The organizing committee of the "commemoration" includes not only
politicians and government officials, for whom elections are the alpha and
omega of their existence, but also leading scholars who have done much in
the past decade to demolish the Pereiaslav myth created by Russian imperial
and Soviet historiography. Their careers will not begin or end with the 2004
elections, while scholarship-their "electoral district" -is no place for
dramatic shifts in conclusions and orientations every few years. To a
degree, we understand the motives that guide many of them. For directors of
scholarly institutes, the decree is a means of obtaining funds from the
state, of which there is a great dearth and which are constantly lacking for
scholarly pursuits, particularly conferences, publications, and other
activities for which provision is made in the presidential decree. Besides,
taking money earmarked for "commemorations" makes it possible to hold
genuine conferences, undermine the "Pereiaslav myth," and underscore the
true motives and significance of the Pereiaslav Council-a real turning point
in Ukrainian history. These arguments, which we have had occasion to hear,
were certainly valid in a state that did not belong to us. But reverting to
this way of thinking in independent Ukraine is equivalent to one more
attempt at outfoxing oneself.
Intentionally or not, the presidential decree of 13 March 2002 politicizes
historical scholarship in order to legitimize a possible change in the
foreign policy of Ukraine and reorient the historical consciousness of the
Ukrainian people. Your participation in these measures-commemorating an
event that most historians on the organizing committee continue to regard as
a decision forced upon our "great Bohdan"-will lend legitimacy to those
forces in Ukraine and beyond that seek to resurrect the empire which
Pereiaslav helped create. That would be a disservice to Russia and Ukraine,
whose progress requires not the rebuilding of the empire but the development
of democratic nation-states.
Dr. Zenon E. Kohut, Director, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies,
University of Alberta
Dr. Frank Sysyn, Director, Peter Jacyk Centre for Ukrainian Historical
Research, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of Alberta
Dr. Serhii Plokhy, Director, Church Studies Programme, Canadian Institute of
Ukrainian Studies, University of Alberta
14 June 2002
We address ourselves to you in response to the decree of the president of
Ukraine dated 13 March 2002 "On the Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary
of the Pereiaslav Cossack Council of 1654." The decree's contents, as well
as the membership of the organizing committee, indicate the serious nature
and breadth of scope of the intended undertaking. The 2004 commemoration of
the Pereiaslav Council, if actually carried out according to the plan
outlined in the decree, will not, of course, equal the scale of the 300th
anniversary "commemoration" in 1954, but will significantly outdo the 325th
anniversary "commemoration" of 1979. The previous anniversaries were
commemorated in Ukraine as a constituent of the Soviet Union; this new
"commemoration" is to take place in independent Ukraine. The main feature
that seems to distinguish the proposed 2004 event from those of 1954 and
1979 is the use of the more neutral term "commemoration" in the 2002 decree
as opposed to the previous Communist Party-prescribed term "celebration." In
the main, the Soviet tradition of fawning before Moscow and the "elder
brother" is being continued.
Do the authors of the decree and members of the organizing committee not
understand that they are preparing to commemorate the anniversary of an
event that led to the abolition of the independent Ukrainian state formed
under Bohdan Khmelnytsky's leadership? The March decree calls into question
not only the historical legitimacy of Ukraine's current independence, but
also the official genealogy of the Ukrainian government. That government's
traditions go back to Ukraine's first president, Mykhailo Hrushevsky, who
regarded Pereiaslav as a mistake and declared an "end to [our] orientation
on Moscow" in1918. The decree also calls into question Ukraine's official
declarations in favour of European integration. When it comes to the
historical calendar, the decree ignores the 750th anniversary of Prince
Danylo's coronation (symbolizing Ukraine's orientation on the West) in 2003,
but "commemorates" the 350th anniversary of the Pereiaslav Council, which
marked the beginning of the Russian Empire's westward expansion. Will the
"commemoration" of Pereiaslav be followed by similar elaborate
"commemorations" of the Ukrainian-Swedish alliance of 1656, the Hadiach
Agreement of 1658, or Ivan Mazepa's break ("betrayal," in official Soviet
terminology) with Moscow in 1708? The answer to this question will be given,
most likely, during the presidential elections of 2004, for which the
"commemoration" of Pereiaslav is undoubtedly intended to set the tone.
The organizing committee of the "commemoration" includes not only
politicians and government officials, for whom elections are the alpha and
omega of their existence, but also leading scholars who have done much in
the past decade to demolish the Pereiaslav myth created by Russian imperial
and Soviet historiography. Their careers will not begin or end with the 2004
elections, while scholarship-their "electoral district" -is no place for
dramatic shifts in conclusions and orientations every few years. To a
degree, we understand the motives that guide many of them. For directors of
scholarly institutes, the decree is a means of obtaining funds from the
state, of which there is a great dearth and which are constantly lacking for
scholarly pursuits, particularly conferences, publications, and other
activities for which provision is made in the presidential decree. Besides,
taking money earmarked for "commemorations" makes it possible to hold
genuine conferences, undermine the "Pereiaslav myth," and underscore the
true motives and significance of the Pereiaslav Council-a real turning point
in Ukrainian history. These arguments, which we have had occasion to hear,
were certainly valid in a state that did not belong to us. But reverting to
this way of thinking in independent Ukraine is equivalent to one more
attempt at outfoxing oneself.
Intentionally or not, the presidential decree of 13 March 2002 politicizes
historical scholarship in order to legitimize a possible change in the
foreign policy of Ukraine and reorient the historical consciousness of the
Ukrainian people. Your participation in these measures-commemorating an
event that most historians on the organizing committee continue to regard as
a decision forced upon our "great Bohdan"-will lend legitimacy to those
forces in Ukraine and beyond that seek to resurrect the empire which
Pereiaslav helped create. That would be a disservice to Russia and Ukraine,
whose progress requires not the rebuilding of the empire but the development
of democratic nation-states.
Dr. Zenon E. Kohut, Director, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies,
University of Alberta
Dr. Frank Sysyn, Director, Peter Jacyk Centre for Ukrainian Historical
Research, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of Alberta
Dr. Serhii Plokhy, Director, Church Studies Programme, Canadian Institute of
Ukrainian Studies, University of Alberta
14 June 2002