Епістолярій як джерело до вивчення рецепції творчості Михайла Грушевського

Abstract

Introduction. Researchers of receptive issues have repeatedly noted the fruitfulness of involving the extensive epistolary of M. Hrushevsky and his correspondents to clarify the complex palette of features of the perception of the intellectual heritage of the historian. Therefore, correspondence is still used today, but mainly as an auxiliary illustrative source, to better understand the specifics of interpersonal communication and the context of publicly expressed assessments. However, careful study of Hrushevsky’s epistolary materials allows us to discuss its independent heuristic value for understanding receptive issues. For example, the letters of correspondents of a prominent historian often raise professional issues that did not appear in the published texts for one reason or another. But much more important for us are the cases when letters to the author of “History of Ukraine-Rus” are the only evidence of the attitude to his work by some contemporaries who did not speak publicly, although sometimes expressed intentions to prepare reviews. Therefore, the discovery of epistolary sources significantly expands our awareness of the perception of the ideas of the historian in the then intellectual space. Drawing colleagues’ attention to this currently underestimated dimension of receptive Hrushevsky studies and realizing the multifaceted nature of the whole problem, below, we will only briefly touch on its most significant aspects. The article aims to clarify the information possibilities of correspondence of figures of the late XIX - first third of the XX century to reconstruct the reception of M. Hrushevsky’s work. Results. According to the study, the correspondence of intellectuals of the late nineteenth - first third of the twentieth century contains much unique information about the peculiarities of the reception of the work of M. Hrushevsky. The popularity of such communicative practice as correspondence at that time allows us to recreate a much richer palette of evaluative interpretations of the author’s work “History of Ukraine-Rus” and expand the problem-thematic horizons of the receptive Hrushevsky studies. Among the least known aspects is reproducing a circle of “unrealized” reviewers, finding out (in) compliance of public criticism with private assessments, as well as identifying noteworthy historiographical observations that never became public property. Conclusion. The study showed the importance of working on a more intensive and coordinated search for new epistolary sources and closer attention to the collections known today.