CC BY
43
Section 2. History and archaeology
Section 2. History and archaeology
Perederiy Iryna Grygoriyivna, DSc, Poltava National Technical Kondratyuk Yuri University, DSc, Professor, Ukrainian Culture and Documentation Department E-mail: [email protected]
Periods in V. Lypynskyi’s political thinking: historiographic stereotypes and new approaches to the problem understanding
Abstract: A new, scientifically grounded periodization of V. Lypynskyi’s political philosophy is suggested. Interpretation of the debating historiographic problem of evolution and sustainability in political views of the outstanding Ukrainian personality of Polish origin has been given.
Keywords: V. Lypynskyi, territorialism, conservatism, Ukrainian Hetman-monarchist movement.
In the history of the Ukrainian nation there are many figures who were far ahead of time as to their spiritual potential. The figure of Vyacheslav (Vatslav) Kazymyrovych Lypynskyi (1882-1931) is among them: he was a Pole by birth, but a true Ukrainian by his political beliefs. The Ukrainian politician, diplomatic official, historian, journalist, politologist, sociologist, ideologist of the Hetman-monarchist movement — that is only the list of the main incarnations of this remarkable personality.
Despite the considerable number of scientific publications on the life and activity of this outstanding figure, a certain number of problems, requiring further analysis for their final solution, are still remaining in the field of Lypynskyi studies. Among them there is the necessity to understand the debating historiographic problem of evolutionary or sustained nature of Lypynskyi’s conservative political outlook, to offer an appropriate, scientifically grounded periodization of his political thinking.
The debates about the evolutionary or sustained nature of V. Lypynskyi’s views were started by the scholars representing the Ukrainian expatriate community since the 1950s. Namely, L. Bilas argued that the evolution of V. Lypynskyi’s political views had been insignificant and that he had followed the conservative monarchy philosophy for almost the whole of his life, and the ideas of democracy had been alien to him [1]. His opinion was shared by the most of Ukrainian historians abroad, except for Pelenskyi J., who was convinced that the pre-revolutionary period in the life ofV Lypynskyi should be considered democratic, and his conservative views had been only formed with experience accumulation and under the influence of frustration caused by the defeat of national liberation movement of 1917-1921. This was exactly the conclusion he had grounded in his article published as early as in 1957 [2, 197-213].
In the early 1990’s. J. Pelenskyi suggested the periodization ofV. Lypynskyi’s worldview evolution that included three
periods: the early one (democratic) — 1908-1919, conservative-monarchist (Hetman) — 1919-1929, independent conservative with a focus on the future Ukrainian constituant as the highest legitimate authority — 1929-1931 [3, 15-29]. To our opinion, this periodization is rather artificial and insufficiently justified.
The discussion of evolutionary or sustained nature of the scholar’s political views was continued by the studies of modern national researchers S. Linetskyi [4, 29-42] and T. Ostashko [5, 96-113]. Their viewing of the problem is close to the views of Ya. Pelenskyi and leads to the conclusion that the pre-revolutionary period ofV. Lypynskyi and his outlook can be considered as generally democratic, whereas the post-revolutionary period as a conservative one.
In 2012 we had prepared and published the first complete synthetic study devoted to V. Lypynskyi’s life, activity and body of work [6]. It is based on achievements of our predecessors and on the extensive documentary basis, offers a comprehensive, systematic view of the personality, highlights insufficiently studied periods of his life and activities, offers analysis of some debating scientific issues, using new approaches.
Analysis of all sources studied in the course of the monograph preparation allowed the author to develop a new periodization of V. Lypynskyi’s political outlook which, in our opinion, most accurately reflects the specificity of his views on Ukrainian national liberation movement and on the ways to implement the Ukrainian nation-building at different stages of his social and political activities. Thus, we can distinguish four main periods in life and active social and political activities ofV. Lypynskyi, namely: 1908-1917 — territorial — conservative period with a focus on independent Ukraine in the near future; 1917-1919 — statist — territorial period; Late 1919-1929 — conservative-monarchist — Hetman period; 1930-1931 — classocratic-monarchist period [7, 26].
10
Periods in V Lypynskyi’s political thinking: historiographic stereotypes and new approaches to the problem understanding
In the pre-revolutionary period, the basis of V. Lypynskyi’s political views were postulates of territorialism, conservatism and focusing on independent Ukraine as the ultimate goal of the Ukrainian national liberation movement. Notably, that the first two were the primary ones, as the idea of Ukrainian independence was regarded by V. Lypynskyi as a prospect, though not too remote in time. Therefore, we can define the pre-revolutionary era in its activity and political thinking (1908-1917) as territorial-conservative with a focus on independent Ukraine. For the purpose of spreading this very idea of territorialism among the conservative part of Ukrainian society, which Lypynskyi understood as the idea of Ukrainian political nation, he fostered his main efforts in social activism, journalistic and ideology activities of the period. He was trying to spread the same idea among the leaders of the Ukrainian nation, proving the necessity of reorientation of Ukrainian movement from the extraterritorial direction (the struggle for national and cultural autonomy) to the territorial sphere, focusing primarily on the struggle for Ukrainians’ national rights and stipulating complete independence of Ukraine in future. Thus, defining this period in the activist’s life as a “democratic” one is not reasonable.
In the period of Ukrainian Revolution of 1917-1921, Lypynskyi became a mature politician and statesman. The activist was at the forefront of the first Ukrainian National Party of conservative tramline — UDCP. His role was not only the direct participation in the institutional development of the political organization, but just as well, in the development of its ideological principles [8, 171-181]. The analysis of separate party program provisions, compiled by Lypynskyi, reflects the evolution of its author’s political views, shows his foresight as a politician, flexibility of his political thinking, because he, being ready to some compromise in state building issues (this is how his contemporary focus on democratic form of government should be considered), did not deflect from the main goal — the independent Ukrainian state.
During the Hetmanate of Skoropadskyi and UPR Directory, Lypynskyi proved himself as a talented diplomat, who was directly involved in setting up political cooperation of the Ukrainian state [9, 249-262]. He consistently defended the idea of a united national front in the struggle for Ukrainian independence and the territorial-state principle of home and foreign policy. Therefore, the period of 1917-1919 in V. Lypynskyi’s life can be defined as statistterritorial, because the idea of Ukrainian state was implemented in reality, and the activist considered it necessary to hold and preserve it at all costs. It was the preservation of national independence, with the help of the territorial-ism principle referring to all the Ukrainian society, that he focused his efforts at.
In the exile period, V Lypynskyi managed in a short time to initiate and develop a new political line in the Ukrainian national liberation movement of the twentieth century. That went down in history as monarchist Hetman period. The role of the activist was both the organizational design of the main political structure of the movement — USCD, and developing a harmonic, theoretically grounded ideology, which his activity was based on. The basis of the mentioned ideology comprised conservatism, territorial patriotism and the patrimonial idea of a constitutional monarchy in the form of traditional Ukraine Hetmanate.
Creating the Ukrainian theory of labor monarchy,
V Lypynskyi tried to restore the structure of the Ukrainian nation, to establish balance between its progressive left and conservative right parts, and insisted that successful state-building is only possible at the condition of the social cohesion in society. V Lypynskyi believed the territorialism principle to be another important political basis for creation of their own State, which he opposed to nationalism. Only on this basis it was possible to implement the real social solidarity of all the population of Ukraine, which would permit to create rather than destroy their own state in the name of “common interests of the common Earth” [10, 154]. He assigned the leading role to the conservative stratum of the population, the core of which he considered to be Ukrainian peasantry element.
The only possible form of government in Ukraine, which would ensure the appropriate structure of the conservative segment, so that it would fulfill its state-building functions,
V Lypynskyi considered the constitutional hereditary monarchy headed by Hetman, whose power was limited by the common law for all citizens. The patrimonial monarch himself, i. e. the Hetman, was to be primarily the embodiment of the principle of national and state unanimity and sustainability of the national tradition, that would secure Ukrainian state from ruining and from the corrosive influence of external forces. Close to the type of monarchy suggested by V Lypynskyi was British monarchy, where the king or the queen perform not legislative, but representative functions, and thus provide existence of the historical tradition and the continuity of the state [11, 89]. On the basis of the analysis of V Lypynskyi’s political thought and activity, we can define his life time since the late 1919 till 1929 as a conservative-monarchist Hetman period.
The conflict between the two trends inside the Hetman executive body — idealistic and realistic — led to a split inside the political movement, the result of which was V. Lypynskyi’s attempt to establish a new Hetman movement with an emphasis on its classocratic monarchial essence, and his rejection of the idea of Hetmanate personification. Respectively, this last period in the life of a prominent politician (1930-1931) should be defined, in our opinion, as the classocratic-mon-archist one.
References:
1. Bilas L. Lypynskyi and «territorialism»//Modernity - Munich, 1962. - № 2. - P. 95-111, № 3. - P. 61-72.
2. Pelenskyi J. Vyacheslav Lypynskyi//Collection «Ukrainian Literature Gazette» for 1956 - Munich, 1957.
11
Section 2. History and archaeology
3. Pelenskyi J. Heritage of Vyacheslav Lypynskyi and modern Ukraine/Vyacheslav Lypynskyi. Historical and political heritage and modern Ukraine./Pelenskyi J. (ed.); East European Research Inst them. V. Lypynskyi et al. - K.; Philadelphia, 1994. -284 p.
4. Linetskyi S. Was Lypynskyi an antidemocrat? (On the evaluation of the scholar’s political beliefs)//Young Nation: Almanac. - K., 1996. - № 2.
5. Ostashko T. V. Lypynskyi and Ukrainian national democracy//Bulletin of Kyiv National Linguistic University. The series’ history, economics and philosophy. - Vol. 14/Ch. ed. Y. I. Tereshchenko. - K., 2008.
6. Perederiy I. G. Vyacheslav Lypynskyi, an ethnic Pole, political Ukrainian: Monograph. - Poltava, 2012. - 622 p.
7. Perederiy I. G. Vyacheslav Lypynskyi in socio-political and scientific life of Ukraine and Ukrainian emigration of the first third of the twentieth century: Abstract of Thesis. for the Doctor’s degree of Historical. Science. - K., 2013. - 35 p.
8. Turchenko F., Zaliska N. Vyacheslav Lypyinskyi - ideologist of Ukrainian Democratic Peasant Party//Vyacheslav Lypynskyi. History and political science heritage and modern Ukraine. - K.; Philadelphia, 1994.
9. Perederiy I. G. V. Lypynskyi as the head and organizer ofthe Ukrainian Embassy in Vienna (1918-1919)//Scientific notes. Series: pedagogical and historical sciences. Collected articles of M. P. Dragomanov National Pedagogical University - K., 2010 - Vol. 87.
10. Lypynskyi B. Letters to fraternal grain-growers. About the idea and organization of Ukrainian monarchist/Vyacheslav Kazymyrovych Lypynskyi/Vyacheslav Lypynskyi. Works, Archive, Studies./V. K. Lypynskyi East European Research Institute. - K., Philadelphia, 1995. - Vol. 6: Works. Section of Political Science./Ed. J. Pelensky.
11. Ostashko T. Vyacheslav Lypynskyi: from the Ukrainian State Ambassador to USCD//Young Nation: Almanac. - K., 2002. -№ 4 (25).
Umarov Shukurilla,
Uzbekestan International Center of Imam Bukhari, doctoral candidates
E-mail: [email protected]
Abdulkhamid al-keshi great of muhaddiths central asian
Abstract: This article is about Abdulhamid Abu Muhammad Keshi In the VII - XII thcentures in Mavarannakhr were lived a lot of islamic scientists. One of the most known scientist was the great muhaddith Abdulhamid Keshi, who was as a master to the Imam Bukhari, Imam Termizi and to the Imam Muslim ibn Hajjaj. Abdulhamid Keshi was born in Kesh and his full name was Abdulhamid ibn Humayd ibn Nasr Abu Muhammad Hofiz Keshi. He wrote many scientific works as a «Musnadi Abd», «Tafsiri Abd» and etc.
Keywords: Abdulhamid Keshi, Kesh, Mavarannakhr, Hadith, muhaddith, «Musnadi Abd», «Tafsiri Abd».
In the history of Islam the 9th-12th centuries are considered to be the golden period as during this period science and Islamic civilization developed highly and such sciences as Hadith, law, philology, logic, interpretation and commentary writings reached their highest peak. The representatives of these branches of science — Khoresmis, Bukharis, Samarqa-ndis, Termizis,Nasafis, Keshis, Shashis and Ferganis appeared on the scene of the science of that time. During the years of Independence the lives, activities and scientific careers of most of these scholars have been studied and investigated, but much is still to be done in this area.
One of such connoisseurs of the science of Hadiths and the teacher of Imam Bukhari, Imam Termizi, Imam Darimi and Imam Muslim ibnHajjaj was Abd ibn Humaydibn Nasr al-Kashshi (Keshi) who was titled as “Hafizu-l-Hadith”, “Sa-hibu-l-musnadi-l-kabir” and “Sahibu-t-tafsiru-l-kabir” His full name was Abdulhamid ibn Humaydibn Nasr Abu Muhammad Hafiz al-Keshi. He is supposed to have been born in 170/786 in Kesh. [15, 235] However, some sources say that he was born later than 170 in accord with Muslim calendar.
Abd ibn Humaydibn Nasr al-Kashshi was the teacher and tutor of three great experts in the science of Hadiths — Imam al-Bukhari, Imam at-Termizi and Imam Muslim ibnHajjaj.
Abd ibn Humayd ibn Nasr al-Kashshi was one of the leading specialists in the field of Hadiths, law and philology and was honoured as “al-Imam, al-Hafiz, al-Hujjat, al-Jawal” [15, 236], etc. In some other historical sources, he was also exalted with pennames as “Keshi, Kesi, Laysi [7, 144], Ka’bi [11, 147] “, etc. The fact that different historians approached to his personality and legacy from different points of view shows that his legacy has not been investigated well enough yet.
Abd ibn Humayd ibn Nasr al-Kashshi is one of the earliest representatives of the science of Hadiths who was educated in Maveraunnahr and paid great attention to the correctness and accuracy of Hadiths.
Abd ibn Humayd ibn Nasr al-Kashshi got his first education in Maveraunnahr. At the beginning of his career, he began to attend the best-known schools of Bukhara, Samarkand and Kesh. As was mentioned in the book “Tarikhal-Islam” (The History of Islam) by a historian Shamsuddinaz-Zahabi,
12
