English translation

Ihor Hyrych
english translation by Andriana Kislingir

Mykhailo Hrushevsky and Ivan Franko: Public and Private

Today, the topic of relations between Mykhailo Hrushevsky and Ivan Franko has lost the relevance it had in the early 1990s, when it was necessary to rid ourselves of the narrow sociologizing legacy of communist ideology. That ideology sought in every way to emphasize the differences between the two great scholars and to separate them into diametrically opposed, fictitious camps: Hrushevsky was to be ascribed to the “bourgeois nationalists,” while Franko was labeled a “revolutionary democrat.”

At present, no one needs to be convinced of the absurdity of such assertions, which were advanced by Soviet Ukrainian scholars and, in part, dictated by a seemingly noble motive – to preserve Franko’s figure within the pantheon of Ukrainian culture officially recognized by the Bolsheviks [1]. To achieve this, it was permissible to sacrifice another classic – the historian Mykhailo Hrushevsky. Had the thesis of the common aims of both giants of science and culture been maintained, both would have had to be removed from the officially sanctioned canon – a move that would undoubtedly have impoverished Ukrainian cultural heritage. Therefore, even such a profound researcher of their relationship as Mykhailo Vozniak [2], who knew all the intricacies of their relations firsthand, was compelled to conform to the demands of communist ideological machinery.

“Fortunately” for the Soviet Ukrainian intelligentsia, Ivan Franko did not live to see the Ukrainian Revolution and therefore did not take an active part in the leadership of the West Ukrainian People’s Republic (ZUNR). Mykhailo Hrushevsky, on the other hand, became a leading figure in the national revolution in the Dnipro region and, according to communist terminology, was branded as a “Ukrainian bourgeois nationalist.” Of course, things were not entirely simple with Franko either: two of his sons were active participants in the struggle for national liberation. Yet this information was suppressed, and as a result, the Bolshevik-constructed image of the “Great Stonecutter” remained intact.

During the Stalinist era, party manipulators felt no need to be troubled by the lack of logic in their statements, to seek evidence, or to argue persuasively. The ideological machine of hard totalitarianism allowed no deviation from the party line or any doubt in the once and forever established interpretation of Ukrainian history. The situation changed somewhat during the Khrushchev Thaw, when it became necessary to substantiate the thesis of antagonism between Franko and Hrushevsky. Aside from Franko’s critical remarks regarding the later volumes of History of Ukraine-Rus’, Soviet literary scholarship had little documentary evidence of disagreement between the two scholars. In this context, the complicated relations between the Hrushevsky and Franko families came in handy – especially as they were described in detail, and evidently not without Soviet encouragement, in the memoirs of Franko’s daughter, Hanna Kliuchko. Ordinary domestic disagreements between two neighbors in a then-suburban area of Lviv were interpreted as ideological conflicts.

In response to the memoirs of H. Franko-Kliuchko [3] and T. Franko [4], which Soviet Franko scholars such as I. Bass, O. Biletsky, O. Kyselov, O. Dei, and A. Kaspruk [5] relied upon, detailed articles by L. Vynar and V. Doroshenko appeared in the journal Suchasnist [6]. These works remain, even today, the most objective studies of the relationship between Ivan Franko and Mykhailo Hrushevsky. Doroshenko quite rightly considered them comrades and allies, united in their contribution to the development of Ukrainian science and culture. This line of research was continued by scholars of Hrushevsky’s work associated with the journal Ukrainian Historian. Much about the fruitful cooperation between Franko and Hrushevsky was written by the head of the Ukrainian Historical Society, L. Vynar, and his deputy, O. Dombrovsky [7]. New studies and published archival materials, particularly the correspondence between Franko and Hrushevsky edited by H. Burlaka [8], not only confirm Doroshenko’s conclusions but also significantly expand the source base for further in-depth research on this subject. Nevertheless, another interpretation of their relationship – seen from the perspective of Franko’s final years – continues to exist [9].

At the same time, a number of nuances in their relations, differences, and similarities in assessing political events and views on the past remain insufficiently clarified. Due to space constraints, we will only touch briefly upon several key issues. We shall also attempt to outline a possible periodization of Franko and Hrushevsky’s relationship, influenced by social-political and personal factors.

The first period can be roughly dated from the early 1890s to the second half of 1894 – the time when Hrushevsky’s move to Lviv became known, and when both he and Franko first reflected on one another before establishing direct contact and personal acquaintance. It concludes with Hrushevsky’s arrival in Lviv, his leadership of the historical-philosophical section, and his editorship of Notes of the Shevchenko Scientific Society (NTSH). It was after several months in Galicia that their personal meeting took place.

The second period (1895/1897–1906/1907) marks the closest rapprochement between the two scholars and their active collaboration within the NTSH and Lviv Scientific Bulletin (LNV), particularly after Hrushevsky became head of the Society. This was the time of their shared vision for Ukraine’s political and cultural development, the period of Franko’s greatest creative flourishing and Hrushevsky’s intense academic and organizational activity. It ended with the relocation of Lviv institutions to Kyiv and the first signs of Franko’s illness.

The third period (1906/1907–1916) is characterized by a certain cooling of relations, caused not so much by ideological, cultural, or aesthetic differences as by Franko’s severe illness, which made further productive work impossible. As his condition worsened, tensions in his relationship with Hrushevsky also deepened. Gradually, Franko withdrew from participation in the NTSH, the LNV, and from active literary and public life in general.

The First Period of Relations: From Radicalism to Populism

During the first period, the relationship between the two figures of the national public life – each on opposite sides of the Zbruch River – was influenced in part by political circumstances beyond their control. Both belonged to opposing camps: Hrushevsky to the group of barvinschuky – the conservative populists, and Franko to the camp of the Drahomanovites and radicals. Therefore, the arrival of the former in Lviv was perceived by Franko primarily as a significant reinforcement of the populist party.

In his letters to Drahomanov, Franko spoke rather unfavorably of Hrushevsky as a national activist and criticized him as a writer. Responding to Drahomanov’s curiosity about who would oppose him, on August 9, 1894, Franko wrote:

“I do not know much about Hrushevsky. He debuted in our literature with several short stories signed as Mykhailo Zavoloka and even wrote a novel [actually a novella, which was never published during Hrushevsky’s lifetime – I.H.] ‘Our Own and Strangers’ – a completely weak work. As for political views, he seems to be a barvinschanyn, and just recently, last autumn or this spring, when Barvinsky went to Ukraine to collect signatures praising his policy and condemning Romanchuk, among those signatures was his as well.” [10]

Franko knew in advance about Hrushevsky’s candidacy for the chair at Lviv University, which he informed Drahomanov about in mid-January 1893. At that time, Dilo published a chapter from Hrushevsky’s candidate dissertation on the history of the Kyiv land. Franko’s comments about Hrushevsky in this letter were also in a dismissive tone, evidently reflecting his general hostility toward the camp of O. Barvinsky and V. Antonovych [11]. With the same tinge of disapproval, Franko mentioned Hrushevsky again at the end of 1894, referring to his speech at the funeral of O. Ohonovsky [12].

Hrushevsky, in turn, was instructed by the leaders of the Old Hromada – O. Konysky and V. Antonovych – to be cautious of “Rudy” (Franko’s pseudonym) as someone who could “spoil everything” in the Polish-Ukrainian rapprochement and who was viewed as the greatest enemy of Barvinsky, the leader of all Galician Ukrainians. Judging by Hrushevsky’s letters to Konysky and Antonovych [13], at the beginning of his public career in Galicia, he adhered to the ideological directives of the Kyiv Hromada – to maintain a common front between the Dnieper hromadivtsi and the Galician populists. However, after gaining a clearer understanding of the Lviv situation, he shifted his political stance, attempting – by allying with the radicals – to draw the majority of the populists away from the pro-Polish compromise policy. Hrushevsky succeeded in this rather quickly, and in Franko he found the most powerful creative force in Galicia.

Interestingly, Hrushevsky’s attempts to find understanding with the radicals began even before his official lectures at Lviv University – that is, when he was still perceived as a staunch barvinschuk. From the very beginning, his political approach was centrist – working toward the leftward shift of the populist social program. This was essentially an attempt to hold a middle ground between the positions of Barvinsky and Drahomanov. As early as the winter of 1894, Hrushevsky tried to persuade Barvinsky to seek compromise with the Drahomanovites – Franko and Pavlyk – but was firmly rejected. Barvinsky wrote:

“In principle, I remain convinced that with our radicals, who conduct only agitation and strive to divide the populists, ruthlessly attacking our societies (suffice it to recall the assaults by Drahomanov, Franko, and Pavlyk on the Shevchenko Society), and who aim to destroy all faith among the people – to lead to complete disbelief (and a simple people without faith is a storm!) – it is impossible to form any kind of union, even of the left.” [14]

Barvinsky likewise refused Hrushevsky’s request to help Franko in obtaining a university position in Lviv, saying he would not “pull chestnuts out of the fire for the radicals” [15].

Hrushevsky’s thoughts about uniting radicals and populists likely arose after his trip to Chernivtsi, or perhaps from his first impressions of Lviv. On Bukovina, he discussed this issue with S. Smal-Stotsky, the leader of the Bukovinian populists, who agreed that Barvinsky’s behind-the-scenes tactics deprived the Ukrainian cause of the possibility of relying on the broad masses of a new Ukrainian generation. Smal-Stotsky wrote to Hrushevsky:

“Barvinsky must come out of his secret corner and present our aspirations openly to the people, for only in this way can the community grow and strengthen.” [16]

Thus, it appears that for Hrushevsky, Franko – the leading radical – was the key figure through whom he sought to place the cultural and social cause on a broad foundation.

On Bukovina, Hrushevsky called on “Kolomyia radicals” to abandon their extreme positions and anti-clerical moods and join the populists. Smal-Stotsky, however, doubted the feasibility of this, believing that if the radicals did unite with the populists, it would only be on the terms proposed by Yulian Romanchuk, who had recently split with Barvinsky and held a middle position between radicals and populists [17] – thus becoming Hrushevsky’s natural ally.

Franko, for his part, also understood the need to form a broad base for the national movement, as Smal-Stotsky noted, pointing to Franko’s change in attitude toward his own scholarly work:

“At last, I received praise from Franko for my grammar – from him, who otherwise considers me nearly an idiot.” [18]

The University of Chernivtsi was also where Franko could have undergone habilitation and later sought a post at the Faculty of History and Philosophy of Lviv University. It was this path that led O. Kolessa to a professorship in Lviv, after his habilitation in Chernivtsi in 1895 under Dean Smal-Stotsky.

The professorship in Lviv and the leadership of the Shevchenko Scientific Society required Hrushevsky, against his will, to engage actively in Galician politics. Scholarly issues at that time were closely intertwined with social and political problems. The Society was, in a narrow sense, the scientific organ of the populists. Therefore, any collaborator of the Shevchenko Scientific Society was expected by the leaders of the populists to share their political program. Meanwhile, the more capable scholars – above all Franko – were generally on the side of the young radicals. For this reason, Hrushevsky sought to attract new forces to scholarly work and to harmonize the political course of the faction that had invited him to the university chair.

He failed to merge the radicals into the populist party. Both Barvinsky and Franko’s chief mentor, Drahomanov, were against it. Hrushevsky then tried to influence Antonovych and Konysky to gain the Kyivans’ support for reforming Galician politics, particularly to put pressure on Barvinsky, who had been among the organizers of the 1894 Polish-Ukrainian agreement initiated from Kyiv.

Realizing the necessity of compromise between extreme positions, Hrushevsky began to lean toward Yulian Romanchuk’s group. But Konysky did not share his plans. In October, before the General Assembly of the Shevchenko Scientific Society, Konysky urged the continuation of Barvinsky’s line. He did not trust Romanchuk’s sincerity and feared his alliance with Volodymyr Shukhevych and his union with Franko [19].

A month later, Konysky returned to Hrushevsky’s proposal to build an alliance with Romanchuk, Franko, and Pavlyk instead of supporting the pure populists led by Barvinsky. He again rejected this vision:

“You know my opinion about the need for reasonable, real opposition – but with whom should it be done? With Shumilo [Pavlyk] or with Ryzhi [Franko], with people who do not have even a grain of sincerity? I am certain that those who asked you to take the lead are nothing more than Yulian’s [Romanchuk’s] schemes… Before the elections, he needs to topple Ratai [Barvinsky]. So, driven purely by selfish motives, he rushed, through such deceitful people as Shumilo and Ryzhi, to ‘win you over’… No! Not with us.” [20]

Konysky was a convinced opponent of Franko, believing that thanks to Barvinsky’s policy and his agreements with the Poles, Galician Ukrainians had achieved more in four years than in the previous thirty-five without the “New Era.” As for Franko as a man and public figure, he had no trust in him.

“I do not believe him in anything,” wrote Oleksandr Yakovych in a letter to Hrushevsky. “Many facts prove that he is a completely immoral person, always ready to betray and sell, and he will never, never become better, for such is the atmosphere around him.” [21]

Konysky had his own experience of dealing with Franko from the 1880s, when he lived in Lviv and edited Pravda. His assessment of Ivan Yakovych was deeply personal and not entirely objective, reflecting a typical one-dimensional perception.

The issue, apparently, was in Franko’s temperament – his solitary position in Galician public life and his constant changes in relations with various leaders. A devoted follower of Drahomanov, after the latter’s death he became disillusioned with many of his mentor’s ideas. Having entered into various understandings with Drahomanov’s antagonists, the Kyiv Hromada leaders Antonovych and Konysky, Franko eventually spoiled relations with them as well. His association with Romanchuk was short-lived and ended with the well-known poem “To the Grey-Headed One.” His long friendship with Pavlyk also turned into prolonged hostility and mutual attacks. Even his long-lasting friendship with Hrushevsky ended in a break and public polemics against the head of the Shevchenko Scientific Society.

Here, Konysky was partly right: the reason lay not so much in Franko himself as in the peculiarities of the social climate, which generated one personal and public conflict after another, endlessly multiplying petty enmities rooted in wounded ambition and vanity. Often, former friends and colleagues became bitter opponents – and vice versa. Barvinsky clashed with Shukhevych, although both belonged to the same party. In turn, Shukhevych at first treated Hrushevsky favorably, then became his fiercest adversary. K. Studynsky, on the contrary, opposed Hrushevsky at the beginning of the twentieth century but became his close friend in the 1920s. Such examples could be multiplied endlessly. They show that it is impossible to find absolute rightness on either side in these mutual accusations.

In the matter of electing a professor of language at Lviv University, Konysky, unlike Barvinsky, supported Hrushevsky’s opinion [22]. The newly appointed professor himself also wished to have Franko as his university colleague. At the end of 1894, the rector Bobzhynsky included Hrushevsky, along with Polish professors Kalina and Pilyat, in the habilitation commission for Franko’s examination. The Polish professors obstructed the process, telling the rector they could not assess the candidate’s scholarly level. Hrushevsky immediately expressed his readiness to do so [23]. However, despite the seemingly successful start, by mid-1895 it became known that the Ministry of Education in Vienna would not approve Franko even as a docent.

Hrushevsky ignored the insistent advice of his senior colleagues and followed his own plan. There could hardly be a better collaborator for the Shevchenko Scientific Society than Franko. Therefore, when in 1897 Barvinsky stepped down and Hrushevsky became chairman, Mykhailo Serhiyovych took all possible measures to secure Franko a permanent position in the Society. Fortune helped: Franko quarreled with the Poles over his article in Zeit about Adam Mickiewicz as a “poet of betrayal” and was left without a stable income.

When Hrushevsky lamented the Polish attacks on Franko and wished to see Franko’s name among the signatories of the appeal for donations to the Society, Konysky refused to support his protégé. He wrote that such a scandalous piece was exactly what he expected from Franko. The Poles, he said, behaved “rudely,” but they repaid Franko in his own coin.

“I agree,” wrote Perebendia [Konysky], “that in a moment of emotional outburst (a sort of psychosis), one may say or even write such things, but this is only the sum of all that Franko has written about the Ruthenians bit by bit over the past twenty years. So, it is not a psychosis – it is simply the awl that has come out of the sack. I think this is not the end; there will be more to come!” [24]

Hrushevsky disagreed with Konysky’s judgment:

“You attack Franko too harshly. I have been working with him in the Society for three years and have never once quarreled with him,”

the historian replied [25]. Yet Konysky’s suggestion of Franko’s unstable psychological state seems to have had some justification, judging by the later development of relations between Hrushevsky and Franko.

Moments of Personal Temperament in Their Relationship

How close were Ivan Franko and Mykhailo Hrushevsky in their relations? On the one hand, it was Hrushevsky who suggested that Franko build a house on his own estate – something one does not offer to a person distant in character or feelings. On the other hand, it is known that such shared living arrangements were not ultimately pleasant for either of them. There is more than enough evidence of a certain coolness in their relationship – its purely business-like nature, a lack of particular warmth or intimacy. On the contrary, what prevailed were pragmatism and mutual material and spiritual interest. At the same time, there was a clear sense of respect and equality on the level of intellectual creativity and public work.

It is interesting that throughout their relationship – even during the warmest years of 1897–1905 – Hrushevsky never addressed Franko in his letters as “Dear” or by name and patronymic, as he did for almost twenty years with Oles, ten with Domanitsky, Konysky, Dzhydzhora, or five with Yefremov. To Franko, he always wrote “Highly Honorable Doctor” or “Esteemed Sir.” Franko reciprocated with “Highly Honorable Professor,” “Most Respected Professor,” or “Most Honorable Sir.” Only in one letter from 1898 does Franko use the phrase “Dear friend” [26]. However, as convincingly shown by H. Burlaka, that letter was not addressed by Franko to Hrushevsky but was written to O. Makovey [27].

In a letter written during the well-known conflict concerning Franko’s dogs, Hrushevsky, in an emotional outburst, reveals his intimate attitude toward Ivan Yakovych, adding to his usual formal introduction the words “my closest comrade in social and national work and friend” [28]. Thus, the cultural and public factor always came first, while the personal one remained secondary.

Nevertheless, it can be assumed that Hrushevsky felt more emotional attachment to Franko than the other way around. Even a quick count of Franko’s mentions in Hrushevsky’s diary between 1904–1910 shows that Ivan Franko is the most frequently mentioned person – appearing in nearly two hundred entries. This number exceeds by several times the mentions of all other figures, including Hrushevsky’s own relatives. Every change in Franko’s behavior provoked in Hrushevsky an intense and emotional response. For example, when he learned that Vasyl Levytsky had slapped Franko in the face, the professor wrote in his diary: “I felt physical pain when I heard it!! Terrible people! As if someone had done such a painful insult to me!” [29] – with exclamation marks after each sentence.

It can be supposed that as an intellectual, Hrushevsky respected Franko more highly than Franko respected him. In the same letter, the Lviv professor referred to Ivan Yakovych as a “poet-psychologist” [30]. Meanwhile, in a letter to Ahatanhel Krymsky written around the same time as the one addressed to Hrushevsky as “dear friend,” Franko wrote the following about the head of the Shevchenko Scientific Society:

“I can say nothing about Hrushevsky’s influence on my literary activity. Neither his works have ever been a model for me, nor is his knowledge of literature such that I could benefit from it. Whether I had any influence on him, I also cannot say.” [31]

Franko was an artist in science and a scholar in poetry. In his personality were united two rarely compatible talents – that of a rationalist and of a master of artistic perception of reality. Franko was not only a linguistic polyglot but also an encyclopedic humanist – a true European in his way of thinking and worldview. Hrushevsky, though inclined toward creative writing, was not a master of prose but rather a skilled craftsman (apart from his few short stories). He knew it and could not help but feel Franko’s superiority in this respect.

Hrushevsky was a very talented publicist but came to publicism from scholarship; for Franko, on the other hand, journalism was his native element – it was how he began his literary career. He was an unsurpassed polemicist, gifted with sophistic talent, capable of proving any argument, even the opposite, if circumstances demanded it. When Hrushevsky invited Franko to his home to read his newspaper and journal articles on socio-political topics, he did it not so much to inform his colleague, but to seek advice on logic, style, and clarity of expression. For Hrushevsky, Franko served as an expert – a master of the publicistic genre whose opinion mattered greatly to the professor. Franko was far more knowledgeable about contemporary literature than Hrushevsky [32]. For him, Polish and German were native languages, while for Hrushevsky, Russian was practically his native tongue, and among classical languages, he was most fond of Latin.

Hrushevsky, on the other hand, was a man of grand projects. He set for himself monumental goals – to write a fundamental history of Ukraine and of Ukrainian literature. He had prepared for this path since his student years. Franko usually worked in small and medium forms; he was a laborer of the literary process, taking on any topic or problem that circumstances or public demand required. In a letter to A. Krymsky, he wrote:

“In science and journalism I have been and probably always will be just a dilettante. I am drawn here and there, trying to learn this or that issue, and when I start writing about it, it is mainly because no one more competent does so. I am more a popularizer than an original scholar… I bring my temperament into my scientific and journalistic work, and by doing so I awaken interest in the issues I raise among people who previously had no idea about them.” [33]

Hrushevsky needed Franko not only as the main literary force of the Society but also as a comrade in the struggle with various oppositions within the Shevchenko Scientific Society, and as an advisor in cultural and public matters. Franko, in turn, valued Hrushevsky as a person who provided him with income and enabled him to support his large family. He never again had such earnings either before or after his collaboration with Hrushevsky.

At the same time, Hrushevsky, taking advantage of Franko’s phenomenal work ethic, made him perform not only creative tasks but also a vast amount of technical labor: reading proofs, correcting manuscripts, compiling indexes, editing countless materials that passed through The Literary-Scientific Herald and the Shevchenko Scientific Society. Franko, due to his character, could not refuse a number of commissioned articles and reviews, or to sign various public appeals drafted by Hrushevsky. This gave grounds for accusations – especially during the writer’s illness – that the historian was exploiting him.

By his very willpower, Franko was suitable for such “exploitation.” He tended to submit to authority and follow the course set by it. Why was this the case? It seems that the main reason lay in his constantly precarious financial situation – chronic lack of money and the need, with a large family, to secure means of existence. Having lost support – including financial – from Mykhailo Drahomanov, Franko received significant material assistance from Hrushevsky, who had no money problems and, by Galician standards, was quite a wealthy man. By inviting Franko to work in the Shevchenko Scientific Society, Hrushevsky provided him with a stable salary. In addition, Franko received fees for works published in The Notes of the Shevchenko Scientific Society, The Literary-Scientific Herald, The Ethnographic Collection, and other society publications.

In 1898, when the 25th anniversary of Franko’s literary activity was celebrated, Hrushevsky organized a fundraising campaign for him. Being a practical person, Hrushevsky, recognizing the extraordinary power of Franko’s talent, took upon himself the concern for the financial side of the writer’s and scholar’s life. Only after Franko entered Hrushevsky’s sphere of care did his household finally stabilize: he acquired a permanent home and a steady, modest but reliable income and work. Therefore, it seems entirely logical that Franko’s villa was built on the land bought by Hrushevsky for himself.

Hrushevsky, however, was of a different disposition. He was used to leading – giving orders and monitoring their execution. This leadership stance, during the period of Franko’s good health, elicited diligent cooperation; but during his decline and illness, it led instead to quiet resentment and constant dissatisfaction with the voluntary subordination he had accepted.

Having become head of the Shevchenko Scientific Society, Hrushevsky also took upon himself the functions of a political leader. He became actively involved in both Galician and Dnipro-region politics. Franko, on the contrary, having found a protector in Hrushevsky, withdrew from active politics and focused purely on scientific and artistic issues. He completely relied on the professor’s opinion and followed almost all of his political directions. When Hrushevsky opposed the opportunistic stance of the National Democratic Party, Franko too took an oppositional position [34]. When Hrushevsky sought the support of the National Democrats while transferring his activities to the Dnipro region and temporarily reconciled with K. Levytsky and the Central Committee of the party, Franko also complied. Hrushevsky considered private gymnasiums in Galicia a greater achievement than the national theater – and Franko agreed. Once Franko had joined forces with Hrushevsky in the Shevchenko Scientific Society, he immediately lost interest in active politics and ceased to play the prominent social role he had held during his Drahomanov period. This apathy of Franko toward public life after 1905 often drove Hrushevsky to despair, and he wrote in his diary:

“The local friends [meaning Franko and Hnatiuk – I.H.] live off me, sit on me – they shift all unpleasantness onto me and never think it necessary to return what I am due. Such moral insensitivity is very painful.” [35]

Factor of M. Drahomanov in the Relations of Scholars

One of the key problems in studying the relationships among scholars is understanding the rapid ideological metamorphosis of I. Franko: initially an active and engaged follower of Drahomanov, later becoming a narodovets and a national democrat – co-founder, together with M. Hrushevsky, of the National-Democratic Party of Galicia. Was Franko’s break with Drahomanovism an act of independent, conscious decision-making, or was it the result of a stronger spiritual influence exerted by M. Hrushevsky, who for Franko replaced the influence of M. Drahomanov?

Letters from M. Drahomanov to I. Franko and Franko’s responses demonstrate how undesirable and harmful to Mykhailo Petrovych was the development of the narodovets direction and the policy of the "new era." Even the reorganization of the Shevchenko Scientific Society (NTSH) was negatively perceived by Drahomanov, although it concerned scholarly work. For Drahomanov, such scholarship was not national but partisan, coming from a competing political direction. While under the full influence of the Sofia émigré (as he later acknowledged in his publications about Drahomanov), Franko conscientiously followed his directives. He confronted the narodovets, yet sought contacts with Moscophiles and left-leaning Poles, criticized the "narrow nationalism" of O. Barvinsky’s supporters, and the lack of a broad European vision of the Ukrainian question, among other things. The narodovets publications, including the NTSH Proceedings, were not spared from his criticism. Observing only the drawbacks of the Polish-Ukrainian agreement from Drahomanov’s perspective, Franko did not lose sight of the undeniable tactical benefits that this agreement provided to Ukrainians both in Galicia and in the Dnieper region.

In 1895, M. Drahomanov passed away, and Franko’s position in Galician politics changed 180 degrees. He now advocated for the observance of national preferences for the Ukrainian cause, combating the dangerous cosmopolitan and pro-Moscow tendencies in the activities of the radicals, sharply distinguishing between Moscophiles and conscious Ukrainians, aligning with moderate narodovets, and severing relations with sincere and steadfast Drahomanovists, primarily with M. Pavlyk. In fact, the conflict with Pavlyk was largely dictated by Franko’s changed attitude toward Drahomanov. Another major reason was Pavlyk’s attacks on the management (division) of NTSH, whose members included Hrushevsky and V. Hnatyuk.

The reason for this metamorphosis in Franko remains a central question. Franko himself later admitted in several articles that the constant pressure from M. Drahomanov oppressed him, burdened him with authoritarianism and maximalism. He disagreed with many of Drahomanov’s ideas but, being under the constant influence of Drahomanov’s authority and iron will, dared not contradict him. In a letter to A. Krymsky, Franko wrote:

"Undoubtedly, the late Drahomanov had a great influence on me, but a very peculiar one, more negative than positive. As a fiction writer, I hardly benefited from him; he seemed not to pay attention to my literary work, and when he did, it was only through scolding. Indirectly and directly, he pushed me toward journalism, but even there he did not like thoughts other than his own. Summarizing everything I remember of his influence, I would say he was not for me a father, kind and understanding guide to my faults, but rather a whip, that mercilessly, sometimes unjustly, but always painfully lashed me. It was a harsh school, harsher than that of the Basilian Fathers in Drohobych."

Could the same have occurred in the relationship between M. Hrushevsky and I. Franko? That is, did Hrushevsky replace Drahomanov as Franko’s mentor and ideological guide? Such a statement may seem too bold in relation to a person whose intellectual breadth and knowledge in various spheres of spiritual creativity stood above both Drahomanov and Hrushevsky. However, this concerns not the ability to draw independent conclusions, but the volitional influence of a personality that imposes the general directions of ideological thought. In this sense, the will of the head of NTSH was far stronger than Franko’s disposition.

During the 1880s, there was a constant struggle between the Kyiv-based Stara Hromada and M. Drahomanov for ideological influence. Franko oscillated between the positions of Antonovych–Konysky and Drahomanov, ultimately favoring the latter and his understanding of the Ukrainian political situation in both the Dnieper region and Galicia. His marriage at that time to O. Khoruzhynska, in a metaphysical sense, represented a “union” with the Kyiv Stara Hromada, who strongly opposed Drahomanov and supported O. Barvinsky’s narodovets policy in Lviv. At times he also leaned directly toward the Lviv narodovets, even agreeing occasionally to edit their journal, which earned him severe criticism from Drahomanovists.

Observing the flaws in Drahomanov’s political vision in the early 1890s, Franko was nevertheless closer to the Sofia professor than to the narodovets. The young radicals, among whom Franko was a key figure, were no longer pure Drahomanovists in ideological-political terms; regarding the national question, they began drifting toward the narodovets. In the social sphere, however, they fully shared Drahomanov’s positions – his socio-national determinism and clear distinction in the hierarchy of “progress and reaction,” and his attitude toward the wealthier strata of society.

To combine the positive elements of both Galician parties’ programs, a new external force was needed, which became M. Hrushevsky. The numerical advantage was on the side of the narodovets. The future, the intellectual potential, lay with the radicals. The end of the “New Era” policy, abolished by Hrushevsky, was the turning point that pushed the majority of the narodovets (except for O. Barvinsky’s right-wing conservatives) to unite with the radicals. For the young Hrushevsky, this was more than a bold step. He was challenging the person who had positioned him in Galician circles. The young professor did not yet have the support of Lviv notables, and this could have cost him his newly acquired university post.

The second issue: M. Hrushevsky changed the political course prescribed to him by Antonovych and Konysky. His relations with the Kyiv national leaders of the second half of the 19th century had significantly cooled. Antonovych, in particular, complained about Hrushevsky’s curtailing cooperation with Barvinsky and the Poles. Yet Hrushevsky steadfastly adhered to the chosen course, placing his bet on I. Franko against Barvinsky. As later developments in Galician politics and the scientific expansion of NTSH showed, Hrushevsky’s decision proved, perhaps, the only correct one in that complex situation. The joint creation – the National-Democratic Party – immediately became the leading force of Galician Ukrainian society until the emergence of the Western Ukrainian People’s Republic.

An illustration of this thesis can be seen in the presentation of M. Drahomanov in the pages of Zapisky NTSH and LNV. In the late 19th century, Hrushevsky published Drahomanov’s ethnographic works through NTSH. Antonovych worried about the position the society adopted regarding a person who was not particularly sympathetic, even skeptical, toward the idea of independent Ukrainian scholarship without the support of imperial but recognized European academic centers, such as the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. Hrushevsky reassured his teacher that this concerned not Drahomanov’s political writings or historiographical ideas, but his ethnographic works.

Hrushevsky shared Drahomanov’s negative reception by Antonovych regarding the independent policy of Ukrainians in literature, culture, and science. In 1901–1906, he mentioned this in several journalistic articles. In the article “On the Threshold of the Century,” he wrote: “…regarding the cultural independence of Ukraine (not to mention political independence) [Drahomanov] never fully freed himself from the influences of Pan-Russism, even encouraging Galician Ruthenians to adopt Russian culture as superior and to emulate the Bulgarians… He evidently did not understand [the situation in which Ukrainians found themselves]; his calls – to turn to Russian literature in the name of general progressive principles – played into Pan-Russian hands, already too strong in Ukraine, and his advice – to establish Ukrainian language in practical everyday matters – went along with the prevailing opportunism and hindered a theoretical understanding of the Ukrainian question.”

Similarly, Hrushevsky assessed Drahomanov in the articles “On Ruins” (1905), “The Next Day” (1906), and “The Movement of Political and Social Thought in the 19th Century” from the collection Liberation of Russia and the Ukrainian Question. In the last article, the Lviv professor criticized the unsuccessful regional principle of Russia’s autonomization, which denied the principle of national-territorial autonomy.

From the end of the 19th century, Franko found himself fully in the current of Hrushevsky’s ideological concept regarding the direction of the Ukrainian socio-political movement. In 1900, O. Konysky – the main Kyiv opponent of Franko in his active Drahomanovist period – died. On the pages of LNV and in the NTSH Chronicle, Hrushevsky immediately published a detailed obituary. Franko simultaneously wrote a small popular brochure about Konysky’s life and work, published by Prosvita in Lviv in 1901. Following Hrushevsky’s guidance, Franko positively evaluated Konysky’s contribution to the Ukrainian cause, emphasizing the Polish-Ukrainian agreement and the scientific reorganization of NTSH. He skillfully avoided the conflict between Konysky and Drahomanov, understanding Konysky’s tactics and not accusing Drahomanov of misunderstanding national interests. Franko interpreted misunderstandings in the Ukrainian conservative and radical camps as the impossibility of reconciling Polish, narodovets, and radical interests, and that Konysky had to manage understanding in secrecy.

In parallel with the work on Konysky, Franko wrote another article that became evidence of his final overcoming of the “Drahomanov complex.” This was his landmark 1900 article in LNV, “Beyond the Possible”. In it, he reckoned with Drahomanov’s cosmopolitanism and lack of belief in Ukraine’s independent future. Franko wrote: “…in his political writings, Ukrainians were always only southern Russians and should remain so. He [Drahomanov] strove even more strongly to link Ukrainians with Russians through the fight against a common enemy – absolutism… In the ‘Free Union’ he provided an example of a completely non-national Russian federation… His deep and strong faith in Western European ideals of social equality and political liberty obscured from his eyes the ideal of national independence, an ideal that not only encompasses both previous ideals but alone can provide them the field for full development… Lack of faith in the national ideal, carried to extreme political consequences, was the main tragedy of Drahomanov’s life and the reason for the fruitlessness of his political struggles.”

This article by Franko should be considered in connection with the newly created National-Democratic Party of Galicia, actively supported by Hrushevsky, whose key program point was the eventual attainment of independence and, in the first stage, the creation of a separate Ukrainian crown land in Eastern Galicia, allowing the final distinction of Ukrainian and Polish national interests.

Regarding the evolution of Franko’s thought under Hrushevsky’s influence, it is interesting to compare this article with a work written five years earlier – specifically, Franko’s response to Yu. Bachynsky’s article Ukraina irredenta. The difference in the evaluation of Drahomanov over 5–10 years is striking. In 1895, Drahomanov was “a sincere Ukrainian,” “a conscious European and equally conscious Ukrainian” in Franko’s eyes; by 1906, he was “an ethnic Ukrainian, but a political Russian” (The Socio-Political Views of M. Drahomanov). In Franko’s later works, written under Hrushevsky’s ideological guidance, Drahomanov’s views on the Ukrainian literary language aligned with M. Kostomarov’s stance on a language “for domestic use,” whereas in the review of Bachynsky, Drahomanov’s belief in a common high “All-Russian” literature for Ukrainians and Russians was justified by Franko as a struggle against “any national exclusivity, national hatred, and chauvinism.”

The same applies to the key issue of Drahomanov’s attitude toward Ukrainian independence. In the dispute with Bachynsky, Franko defended Drahomanov’s federalism. According to Franko, Drahomanov was not a principled opponent of independence; rather, the objective conditions in Ukraine had not yet matured. Sympathizing inwardly with Bachynsky’s views on Ukrainian nationhood, Franko resorted to a characteristic substitution of concepts: he considered that political independence was possible even in connection with Russia, under a federal system.

However, comparing Franko’s 1891 view on Ukrainian independence, during his alignment with Drahomanov’s main visions, reveals a striking difference (see the article Ukrainian “Narodovtsi” and Radicals). According to Franko, the narodovtsi erred in drawing from Shevchenko’s works a vision of a “self-sufficient Ukraine, mighty and unfortunate, of Cossacks as an ideal of chivalry, courage, and patriotism, of Poles and Muscovites as oppressors of this Ukraine.”

Franko’s attitude toward Drahomanov often determined Hrushevsky’s stance toward a person. Hence, Franko likely had to decide: if you side with the professor, you must abandon Drahomanovism. A characteristic example of a “partisan” approach to friendship versus opposition is seen in Hrushevsky’s attitude toward Drahomanov’s niece, Lesya Ukrainka. In a letter to M. Kryvyniuk dated May 29 (June 11), 1903, she wrote that I. Trush reproached her for “partisanship” against him, for not severing ties with Pavlyk, and allegedly ignoring Hrushevsky in the presence of him and the Council.

In July 1903, Lesya Ukrainka stayed in Lviv at M. Pavlyk’s home. Franko visited her and advised against visiting Hrushevsky. Even though in a letter to a representative of Hrushevsky’s “clique,” I. Trush claimed she belonged neither to Pavlyk’s nor Hrushevsky’s “party” and visited both, her relationship with Pavlyk, rooted in old friendship, could not be severed by the opposition conflict between Pavlyk and Hrushevsky.

The Russian Revolution of 1905–1907 sparked renewed interest in Drahomanov as a precursor of Russian constitutionalism and socialism. Russian public opinion seized upon Drahomanov’s ideas on the national question, interpreted from a centralist perspective. The concept of regional autonomy fitted well with the Kadet Party’s approach to the national question. A problem for the Ukrainian movement was that many influential Ukrainian figures within the Kadets shaped political life in Right-Bank Ukraine. The idea of regional autonomy also appealed to pro-Russian Polish parties, who gained a seemingly democratic rationale to restore influence in Right-Bank Ukraine, Chełm, and Podlasie. The concept was promoted in the popular Kyiv newspaper Kievskie otklyki by M. Vasylenko. However, the greatest cultural resonance was found in Drahomanov’s socio-political works published in St. Petersburg in 1906 by Kadet B. Kistiakovsky.

The negative Drahomanov influence, seemingly subdued by Hrushevsky in Lviv and Kyiv, revived. Franko, at Hrushevsky’s request and guidance, engaged with this issue. His diaries from 1904–1910 testify to this. On June 7, 1906, V. Paneyko asked Hrushevsky to give a lecture on Drahomanov before Lviv students. Hrushevsky refused, explaining his position against making Drahomanov a national prophet. Franko volunteered instead. He coordinated the content of his lecture with Hrushevsky on June 28. Franko was to present Drahomanov as an antiquarian, i.e., a figure who did not foresee a separate Ukrainian movement. The lecture, delivered on July 15, 1906, was later published in LNV in August under the title The Socio-Political Views of M. Drahomanov. Before publication, on July 4, Franko again consulted Hrushevsky, who noted in his diary: “He mostly did not follow his critical plans in the presentation.”

In stark contrast, Drahomanov’s widow, in early 1907, accused Franko of betraying the memory of Drahomanov, opportunism, and insincerity, because he had not defended his position against Drahomanov during his lifetime and had instead catered to certain party interests – a hint at Hrushevsky’s anti-Drahomanov influence. Franko’s response was revealing: he claimed that Drahomanov corresponded with him as a radical (regarding the preface to Drahomanov’s letters to Franko), while Franko was a narodovets (sic!), implying that he felt aligned in spirit with the narodovtsi, yet opposed them publicly due to Drahomanov’s influence. This supports O. Konysky’s observation of Franko’s instability: his public stance did not always align with his private convictions.

Hrushevsky’s influence on Franko’s new attitude toward Drahomanov was not denied, though Franko did not formally acknowledge belonging to any “party.” In a narrow sense, Franko was correct: neither he nor Hrushevsky formally belonged to parties at the time; they had left the National-Democratic Party. For L. Drahomanova, the concern was figurative “partisanship” – Franko was considered part of Hrushevsky’s “family,” i.e., his intellectual-political circle. He recognized Drahomanov as a teacher but felt resentment for Drahomanov’s perceived unfairness.

Moving to the content of Franko’s works on Drahomanov – the article The Socio-Political Views of M. Drahomanov and the preface to the book M. Drahomanov: Letters to I. Franko and Others (both published in 1906) – Franko develops Hrushevsky’s earlier ideas, especially those expressed privately in the circle of the “family.” Notable parallels emerge:

“As a politician he [Drahomanov] remained until the end what he had been upon leaving Ukraine – gente Ukrainus, natione Russus; Russia as a political entity was dear to him mainly because of the intellectual culture he saw there. He could not imagine Ukraine without close ties to Russia…”

In disputes with Kadet-aligned Ukrainian politicians, Franko, Hrushevsky, and S. Yefremov all “reclaimed” Drahomanov, but via different approaches. Yefremov emphasized Drahomanov as a socialist-federalist; B. Kistiakovsky saw him as a Russian politician of Ukrainian origin, a European-style constitutionalist and socialist. Franko and Hrushevsky stressed a realistic-critical evaluation of Drahomanov’s positive and negative traits – what could be used for contemporary needs and what should be permanently rejected. At this time, Franko had abandoned socialist illusions, making him sharply critical of Drahomanov’s socialism. Yet, he recognized the Drahomanovian evolutionary approach that rejected revolutionary methods, which resonated with Franko himself. He also valued Drahomanov’s respect for individuality – elevating the personal above the collective.

True Drahomanovist M. Pavlyk saw Franko’s critique as a betrayal of youth ideals, attributing the change in priorities to Hrushevsky’s negative influence. Under new circumstances in Galicia, Pavlyk continued promoting Drahomanov’s line and maintained contact with Drahomanov’s niece, Lesya Ukrainka, who supported Pavlyk in preserving Drahomanov’s legacy.

Indirect evidence of Hrushevsky’s “commission” for Franko to critique Drahomanov exists. Between 1907–1910, during crises of illness, Franko often reported visions of Drahomanov twisting his arms or inspiring him to write History of Ukrainian Literature. In this period, Franko also criticized Hrushevsky’s History of Ukraine-Rus’, likely because Hrushevsky had been a promoter of two highly public reactions against Franko: first, criticism of Drahomanov, and second, his article in the German newspaper Die Zeit on A. Mickiewicz (The Poet of Betrayal). Franko’s critique of Mickiewicz may have been motivated by Polish societal opposition that blocked him from a professorship. Hrushevsky’s involvement in this matter was indirect; he encouraged Franko to take a position in NTSH and cease “subservience” in Polish cultural circles.

When Franko critically reviewed Drahomanov’s key work Lost Time (published by M. Pavlyk), Hrushevsky returned the manuscript without publishing it in LNV. Franko acknowledged Drahomanov’s view that the time Ukrainians spent under the Moscow state was largely “wasted” as excessively pessimistic. However, Hrushevsky – though personally having issues with Pavlyk – seemed to agree with Pavlyk’s interpretation of Drahomanov:

“The only salvation: to break away from the kingdom of our wasted existence, to separate and isolate Ukrainian lands from Russia as soon as possible, at any cost, while there is still time…”

Franko thus criticized positions that Hrushevsky considered important and positive within Drahomanov’s socio-political legacy, although he remained critical of his teacher until 1909. Still, for the modern reader, there is little objection to Franko’s emphasis on Drahomanov’s extremes and the misinterpretations of Pavlyk. It seems likely that Hrushevsky found Franko’s review one-sided, highlighting only Drahomanov’s errors while downplaying insights useful to the Ukrainian movement in the early 20th century. This may explain why Hrushevsky returned the manuscript, stating:

“Esteemed Doctor! I have read the review of Pavlyk’s booklet once more, but despite my best intentions, I do not consider it appropriate to publish it.”

The second period of relations. “Hrushevsky’s family” / “clique”

From the late 19th century, an interesting creative and social symbiosis emerged between Hrushevsky and Franko, which contributed to the maximum development of the talent of the great Kameniar over a period of about 8–9 years and allowed him to leave side jobs, primarily for Poles, and to completely focus on the national field. This situation also suited Hrushevsky, who had the opportunity to “exploit” Franko’s phenomenal work capacity for the benefit of Ukrainian science and culture, because in addition to creative work, Franko carried out a lot of preliminary editorial work, especially in LNV (to be fair, Hrushevsky also did a significant amount of preliminary work in the Zapiski of the NTSh).

From the moment Hrushevsky headed the Shevchenko Scientific Society, the so-called “Hrushevsky family” was formed, which, besides I. Franko, also included V. Hnatyuk, I. Trush, and S. Tomashivsky – the eldest student of the Lviv professor. About his belonging to the “family,” Franko wrote to B. Hrinchenko as follows:

“To the Hrushevsky family, I was probably assigned because I have withdrawn from all social life, I go nowhere, I visit no one, except the Hrushevsky house, although most often I am led there by matters of the Society or scientific work.” [59]

Living on the same estate allowed Hrushevsky and Franko to hold ideological-editorial evenings at the Hrushevsky house several times a week, during which Mykhailo Serhiyovych initiated topics for future socio-political articles in the LNV journal, topical journalistic statements in the newspapers Dilo or Rada, the matter of reviewing important scientific and journalistic works, and so on. Often, Hrushevsky presented his future publications to the “family,” primarily key articles for Visnyk. Interestingly, at such meetings, Franko behaved very similarly to his interactions with Drahomanov. He almost never expressed his own opinions about what he had read, merely dryly approving Hrushevsky’s writing. His cold demeanor often surprised the professor, as he repeatedly wrote in his diary [60]. Franko consciously and voluntarily took on a subordinate role in the structure led by Hrushevsky, who acted as the chief-mentor for his younger colleagues. The most warmth and mutual respect occurred only at the beginning of their collaboration within the Society.

Not having to think about daily bread suited Franko perfectly. He immersed himself in numerous tasks at NTSh and began refusing all his other old projects. In 1897, due to “deteriorating health,” he decided to discontinue the publication of the magazine Zhittia i Slovo [61]. This was linked to Hrushevsky’s plan, who, instead of Zhittia i Slova and Zoria, intended to publish the Literary-Scientific Herald. To secure subscribers and concentrate literary forces around a single periodical, Hrushevsky sought to eliminate possible competition from existing magazines. Around this time, Hrushevsky began assembling the editorial board of the new journal and secretly invited O. Makovey to collaborate as an editor: to conduct reviews of Galician life, compile short bibliographies, do literary translations, and occasionally write critical articles. He also informed him that Franko would join the editorial board, who would review foreign literature and life and also write critical articles [62].

The first years after Hrushevsky’s election as head of NTSh were marked by complete agreement between him and Franko, as Franko himself wrote in a series of letters to acquaintances and friends:

“Speaking with him, I usually speak sincerely,” he wrote to F. Vovk. “I know that many people complain about him. Well, this may need to be discussed more. For now, I undertake to be an intermediary between you and the Society and will do what I can.” [63]

This phrase can be understood as Franko being aware of complaints against Hrushevsky but considering his behavior justified under the circumstances.

Meanwhile, Hrushevsky constantly felt isolated. Not only were a significant number of Galicians in opposition to him, but also a substantial majority of the Dnieper Ukrainians could not agree with the uncompromising and principled behavior of the Society’s head. In September 1899, Franko was in Kyiv and sensed dissatisfaction and even hostility toward Hrushevsky from the old community activists. K. Melnyk-Antonovych, D. Bahaliy, and P. Zhytytsky had complaints about not being elected full members of NTSh. Others were angry for unknown reasons. Franko advised him, upon returning from vacation, to visit Kyiv and mend relations [64].

For Hrushevsky, the important factor was not the names in science or the authority of scholars, but concrete work for the benefit of the national science, the center of which was NTSh. Therefore, newcomer S. Yefremov became a full member at the age of 24, after only two years of productive work for LNV and ZNTSh. V. Lypynsky took four years from his first publication in Zapiski, while with D. Bahaliy and “Melnychka,” Hrushevsky had problems for decades because they ignored the Society. P. Zhytytsky was offended by Hrushevsky and Franko over the latter’s review of the book “Eneida” by I. P. Kotliarevsky and its oldest manuscript [65]. Whereas during the Drahomanov period Franko was criticized for radicalism and atheism, now in Zhytytsky’s eyes, he became a “spokesman for the Uniate clergy” [66]. To relieve tension, Hrushevsky and Franko had to write an explanatory letter to Pavlo Hnatovych.

Literary-Scientific Herald became Franko’s main source of income and the primary focus of his efforts [67]. Therefore, in conflicts within NTSh, in which S. Dnistryansky, V. Shukhevych, M. Pavlyk, V. Levytsky (mathematician), O. Kolesa, K. Studynsky, S. Rudnytsky, and others actively participated, Franko actively defended Hrushevsky’s position. His energetic and principled behavior, along with V. Hnatyuk’s solidarity (resignation from the Society’s board), allowed Hrushevsky to retain his position as head of NTSh.

Describing in detail the conflict of 1901 in a letter to B. Hrinchenko, Franko spoke with great reverence and respect about Hrushevsky’s organizational abilities:

“…one really had to admire that man, how he had enough energy and memory to look everywhere and take care of the exact and proper fulfillment of duties everywhere.” [68]

Franko had no doubt that Hrushevsky was the only person who had pulled the Society out of a protracted crisis:

“Finding the administration of the Society in complete patriarchal disorder, Prof. Hrushevsky had to look into every smallest detail, argue with the director of the printing house, with servants, typesetters, check the accounts of paper, the compilation of balance sheets; everywhere he introduced his iron endurance, quick mind, and discipline – and made enemies for himself.” [69]

Franko also reflected on accusations by the opposition of Hrushevsky’s authoritarianism:

“The opposition spared neither Prof. Hrushevsky nor his so-called clique of words of acknowledgment and praise. Only every time they immediately find their ‘but’. Prof. Hrushevsky is a despot, autocrat – this is the first reproach, so elusive, so vile. Elusive, because no one knows how to present the fact of any autocracy, except perhaps that he ensured that everything necessary for the proper course of affairs in the Society was done promptly, as it should be.” [70]

The style and thoroughness of the letter suggest that this was not merely a private reflection on past events. On the contrary, Franko wrote to Hrinchenko as an expression of the shared opinion of Hrushevsky and his supporters to representatives of the Dnieper Ukrainians, who had sent Hrushevsky to Galicia to carry out the all-Ukrainian cause. It even seems that this letter was inspired by Hrushevsky himself to explain the situation to his allies beyond the Zbruch.

Hrushevsky had to take into account Franko’s unstable character and therefore always keep him under supervision. Perhaps this is why Hrushevsky suggested that Franko build a house on his estate. Moreover, he himself managed the construction, proposed the same architect – the Western builder who was erecting his own villa. Hrushevsky tried to neutralize the negative influence of Franko’s wife, who, as much as she could, hindered the construction of Franko’s house. He lent a thousand gulden for the laying of the foundation and walls and advised Franko to write a letter to relative O. Khoruzhynska-Franko, E. Trehubov, to convince her not to obstruct the construction [71].

The chronicle of the three years preceding the dissolution of the old “family” is recorded in Hrushevsky’s diary. The conflict of 1903, apparently, contributed to the emergence of the first serious cracks in the relationship. In March 1904, the professor noted the decrease in contacts with Franko and that the latter had recently become “of little interest” [72]. At this time, Franko consulted Hrushevsky regarding the encyclopedic article “Little Russian Literature” for the additional four volumes of the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary [73]. Immediately after the successful General Assembly of NTSh on March 25, 1904, they went together, at the professor’s urging, who also lent money, on a trip to Italy. They were together in Venice and Rome for “nine days and ten nights.” They returned separately: first Franko to Vienna, then Hrushevsky on April 10 [74].

Upon returning to Lviv, Franko began editing the German translation of the first volume of Hrushevsky’s History of Ukraine-Rus’. Work piled on him continuously. In a letter to A. Krymsky, he complained that Hrushevsky “shouts” to hurry to prepare an article about A. Shashkevych – the king of buffoons, while ideas “do not suffice for eternal proofing” [75]. In the summer of the same year, both participated in Ukrainian studies courses for Dnieper students. In September 1904, at Hrushevsky’s request, Franko translated his article on the first decade of NTSh in Lviv into German for V. Jagich and his Archiv für Slavische Philologie [77]. In the summer of 1905, at Hrushevsky’s request, he “groaned” but translated “the rest of Hrushevsky’s history” into German [78].

In political maneuvers, Franko remained fairly indifferent. For years, he endured Pavlyk’s attacks in the NTSh forum and still agreed to Pavlyk’s proposal to revive the Radical Party, which greatly surprised Hrushevsky. The latter learned of these intentions from Franko through third parties. Knowing Hrushevsky’s attitude toward Pavlyk, Franko immediately abandoned these plans during their first conversation [79]. Nevertheless, the meetings about reviving the Radical Party continued in December 1904, and Franko even “arranged some radical proclamation” [80].

Hrushevsky encouraged Franko to engage in the discussion about the issue of Ukrainian private gymnasiums, their priority for the community compared to the national theater. Franko wrote an article for Dilo, previously coordinating it with the professor. Hrushevsky did not like the programmatic emphasis of the piece [81].

The beginning of 1905 was unpleasant for their relations. Franko spread a rumor through Sushko, who conveyed it to I. Kopachev, that he had to travel with Hrushevsky to Italy in a lower-class carriage. Hrushevsky immediately discussed this with Franko in the presence of witnesses (Hnatyuk). This rumor had a long aftermath. Franko, as Hrushevsky thought, interacted too demonstratively and friendly with Sushko in public, meeting him without Hrushevsky’s knowledge [83].

In addition to the Italy trip story, rumors circulated that Franko was under constant pressure from the professor and, due to financial reasons, was forced to perform tasks he would not voluntarily undertake. These rumors outraged Hrushevsky, and he decided to end them. In August 1905, Hrushevsky held a “face-to-face meeting” at Sushko’s request, to whom Franko had mentioned Hrushevsky’s complaints regarding the spread of rumors in Lviv about moral-financial pressure. K. Kopach, from whom Hrushevsky received the information, was present, along with Franko and Sushko. Franko defended Sushko, saying such rumors were mere “frivolity” and nothing “criminal.” Hrushevsky remained strongly dissatisfied [84]. Later, Franko recounted to Lukiyanovych the trial over Sushko, suggesting that Hrushevsky “winked” at him to avoid overly punishing him for gossip [85].

In January of the same year, the story of Franko’s dogs [86] escalated, resulting in the famous letter from M. Hrushevsky written on the night of October 20–21, 1906, and Franko’s reply [87]. Hrushevsky periodically reminded Franko to get rid of the dogs to preserve peace. Franko would dispose of them, but after some time, he would acquire new ones. In May, Hrushevsky had a “bad night” due to the dogs. In June 1906, the professor spoke with Franko, complaining about the dogs. These problems continued into the next month [88]. Hrushevsky tried to calm down but failed. The nervous tension resulted in insomnia, sometimes lasting weeks, affected by factors like temperature, workday intensity, quarrels, etc. Poor sleep reduced productivity the next day. Normally, Hrushevsky wrote 15–25 pages of text daily. Therefore, his irritation at Franko’s dogs is understandable. Aroused at midnight by barking, he wrote an annoyed letter to Franko and sent it to the Society’s address. After this, Franko became offended. Hrushevsky later went to NTSh to appease Franko. However, the dog saga did not end; Hrushevsky still complained about Franko’s dogs in March 1907 [89]. In addition to the dogs, Hrushevsky was also annoyed by Franko’s rabbits, which occasionally grazed in the Hrushevsky gardens [90].

In 1905–1906, Franko worked extensively on specific assignments from Hrushevsky. In February 1905, he wrote an article on Pavlyk’s jubilee – “Mykhailo Pavlyk: Instead of a Jubilee Silhouette” (LNV – 1905, No. 2, pp. 160–186), criticizing Pavlyk’s activities [91], and in July 1906, on the socio-political views of M. Drahomanov [92]. In return, Hrushevsky wrote an article for a German collection at Franko’s request [93]. In the summer of 1905, Hrushevsky argued with Franko regarding the Old Russian monument “The Miracles of St. Clement, Pope of Rome” [94].

Though seemingly minor – the dispute concerned two editions of this work – it reflected an important mental point. Franko expressed doubts about the validity of Hrushevsky’s interpretation, which, from the professor’s perspective, undermined his authority. At least, this can be interpreted from the diary entry: “read carefully and must reply” [95].

It was from Franko that Hrushevsky received news of his honorary doctorate from Kharkiv University [96]. In NTSh and the LNV, Franko and Hrushevsky maintained a unified stance. They sought to neutralize the desire of some young members of the Society to instigate opposition and to remove the guilty from the administration at the General Assembly of NTSh in spring 1905 [97]. At that time, during a “family” meeting, it was decided to move LNV from the NTSh structure to the Publishing Association, thus freeing it from internal censorship.

An incomparable worker in the creative field, Franko was by no means an organizer of the administrative sphere. Therefore, when D. Lukiyanovych, the supervisor of the student dormitory “Academic House”, left Lviv in the summer of 1905, Hrushevsky asked Franko to monitor the matter but “did not expect anything worthwhile” [98].

During the last two months of 1905 and the entire following year, Hrushevsky worked on convincing the members of the “family” and Kyiv-based colleagues of the necessity of moving LNV to Kyiv. Franko was skeptical from start to finish. His skepticism probably stemmed from the impossibility of continuing close involvement in editing, and hence receiving previous earnings. Therefore, his quiet resistance was based on financial grounds. At the end of October 1905, during a meeting at Hrushevsky’s house, Franko, Hnatyuk, and the Kyiv representative Matushevsky were present, and all reacted coldly to the professor’s proposal [99].

The Kyiv members were also not supportive of Hrushevsky’s plans to lead an all-Ukrainian newspaper in Kyiv or St. Petersburg. Hrushevsky even considered starting his own Lviv newspaper, but the NTSh management (Franko, Hnatyuk, and Lukiyanovych) showed no initiative [100]. The reluctance of Galicians to influence Dnieper affairs led to a joint statement of the “family” in Hromadska Dumka. Interestingly, neither Hnatyuk nor Franko advocated radicalism in relations with Kyiv [101].

In July 1906, Hrushevsky once again discussed the idea of moving the Lviv institutions to Kyiv with Franko. Again, Franko expressed skepticism [102]. He did not object to Hrushevsky but demonstrated complete indifference. Hrushevsky put the matter to the administration (committee) of the Society and the Publishing Association in October, while Franko “sat like pickled… and so I had to give the replies myself,” Hrushevsky wrote in his diary [103].

Franko realized that he could not persuade Hrushevsky to keep LNV in Lviv and began a tactic of quiet opposition. He raised the possibility of a new project for his lectureship at Lviv University and teaching at the free university in St. Petersburg. This demonstrated to Hrushevsky his potential withdrawal from active work in NTSh. Hrushevsky did not object but “reminded him of the acidity that comes from here [Lviv]” [104].

Immediately, rumors spread in Lviv that Hrushevsky was suppressing Franko and that Franko was offended by the professor. Lukiyanovych reported to the head of the Society about Franko’s tales that Hrushevsky “was angry” with him and, therefore, Lukiyanovych was withholding funds from the Publishing Association. Hrushevsky invited Franko for a conversation; they “talked amicably” and Hrushevsky offered money [105].

In November 1906, although Franko’s birthday was in August, he decided to celebrate his fiftieth separately from Hrushevsky and, therefore, NTSh. The secret “commerce” of Franko was organized by V. Hnatyuk. This deeply hurt Hrushevsky, who expressed his grievances to Hnatyuk. Hnatyuk resisted, and then the professor again expressed “some other complaints and sorrows” to Lukiyanovych, noting that one could not expect either consistency or measure from Franko [106].

Previously, when reading Hrushevsky’s articles, Franko would only offer restrained praise; now, he criticized the professor for unclear passages and poor language (written as “heavy and obscure”). The head of the “clique” took the article in hand, reread it with Tomashevski, and did not notice anything, “only the introductory period split in two” [107].

In political aspirations, Franko continued to fully trust Hrushevsky. This applied to obtaining support from politicians of the National-Democratic Party for Hrushevsky’s plans to move printing to Russia. He did not want to engage in opportunistic politics of the Endeks and sought to maintain distance to avoid party discipline. Franko, however, was willing to join the Central Committee (Executive Committee) of the party again if directed by the professor (“if you join, then I will too”) [108].

S. Tomashevski had his own line and wove his intrigue. He sought to draw Hrushevsky into active party cooperation and gain dividends in Endek leadership, particularly with K. Levytsky. Franko had no interest in politics per se; he focused on maintaining the status quo in the Society and Visnyk. He viewed all party negotiations from this perspective. Hrushevsky constantly complained to Franko and Hnatyuk about isolation, noting that neither Franko (since the beginning of his illness), nor Hnatyuk, nor Tomashevski looked at Ukrainian politics from the national movement’s global perspective; each had a limited interest confined to Galicia. He again voiced his reproaches to Franko and Hnatyuk, stating that they mistakenly suspected him of reducing everything to financial relations. The two key “family” figures denied this and affirmed their sincerity to the professor [109].

In September 1906, Hrushevsky and Franko were finally elected honorary doctors of Kharkiv University. The news itself did not bring special pleasure to Hrushevsky [110]. In the struggle against Hrushevsky, predominantly large-state-oriented scientists of the St. Petersburg Academy also exploited the supposed discord between Franko and Hrushevsky in the last year of the old “family.” In March 1907, the news arrived about Franko’s candidacy for the Russian Academy, which Hrushevsky considered “a good solution to the current relations” [111]. For Russians, Hrushevsky appeared a greater “Mazepa follower” than Franko, who remained almost uninvolved in Russian politics and did not irritate state or party circles. According to all norms, both scientists should have been elected, or Hrushevsky first as head of NTSh. Instead, the Moscowphile A. Petrushevych, whose works were in a pre-critical stage, was elected.

From January 1907, LNV began publishing in Kyiv. Interestingly, Franko repeatedly complained to his family and acquaintances in the last years of his life, both orally and in writing, about being sidelined from LNV by the professor. The same grievances, but regarding Franko, were expressed by Hrushevsky in his diary: “Called Franko – but he did nothing for LNV” (25.02.1907), “Even Fr[anko] showed some shadow of interest in it [information that LNV had 1,200 subscribers – I. H.], but everything he said about his apathy” (1.03.1907), “It gives a very unpleasant impression – almost no interest. It was hard to overcome an unpleasant feeling in oneself” (10.05.1907) [112]. Moreover, Franko once asked not to print already typeset pieces in LNV, the proofs of which he had already reviewed [113].

Even after the dissolution of the Second State Duma, Franko continued to “predict” the return of LNV to Lviv [114].

Within the Society, Franko’s behavior towards Hrushevsky also changed. He opposed the head at every appropriate opportunity. In May 1907, during the language commission chaired by Franko, he disagreed with Hrushevsky about the need to develop a consistent orthography for publishing Shevchenko’s works.

The end of the old “family” is dated by Hrushevsky himself in his diary. On October 12–13, 1907, at an NTSh section meeting, the professor again vented his grievances to Franko and Hnatyuk: “Hnatyuk bit back, Tom[ashevski] took the role of mediator. Hardly anything will come of it. Our family has broken up,” Hrushevsky recorded [115].

In life and daily routine, Franko and Hrushevsky spent a lot of time together. Hrushevsky invited Franko not only to confidential meetings but also to dinners and chats. Franko himself visited the Hrushevsky home several times a week (at times even daily). The Franko household did not host the Hrushevskys because, from 1901, relations with Franko’s wife had worsened; she reacted painfully to their presence. Franko came alone, often with friends, usually with Hnatyuk, less frequently with Tomashevski, Lukiyanovych, and Trush. Occasionally, he brought visitors from Lviv who wanted to see Hrushevsky, acting as a guide. He met with M. Kotsiubynsky, brought his brother-in-law M. Drahomanov’s I. Shyshmanov, and spent time with theater luminaries M. Sadovsky, M. Zankovetska. Hrushevsky called Franko when future “family” members I. Dzhidzhora and M. Mochulsky visited. From Franko, Hrushevsky often learned political news: the assassination of P. Stolypin, the lifting of martial law in Russia (February 1907), the October 1905 manifesto of the Tsar. During their rest in Kryvorivnia, Franko also visited Hrushevsky’s summer estate. They went together in Lviv for coffee and ice cream, reading newspapers. Their favorite establishments were the cafes “Monopol” and “Viennese Coffee” [116]. Joint coffee outings continued even during the height of tensions between them [117].

There is no need to search for the guilty or the right side in this local act of elite change at NTSh. Each side had its reasons for actions and deeds. Objectively, Franko was the leader of the “family,” and with his departure, the clientelist relationships Hrushevsky had with Hnatyuk, Trush, and Tomashevski were destined to collapse. Considering family circumstances and health, neither Franko nor Hnatyuk [118] could physically commit themselves fully to the little-known Ukrainian life in the Russian-controlled territories or move to Kyiv. The Society’s financial capabilities did not allow maintaining the old level of payment for old staff while simultaneously engaging new personnel. A conflict on a material basis was inevitable, considering that the old “family members” had no real opportunities to earn externally. Hrushevsky tried as much as possible to mitigate the conflict, but he could not achieve it in practice. His idea to transfer Franko to piecework payment [119] could not satisfy a person whose health was failing and who was losing his former extraordinary productivity.

To preserve the forward momentum of the Society, which simultaneously performed scientific and socio-political functions, it was necessary to involve new people, even with talents more modest than Franko’s. Hrushevsky was forced to gradually and cautiously distance Franko and bring in M. Mochulsky [120], I. Krevetsky, I. Dzhidzhora, M. Yevshan, M. Zaliznyak, O. Rozdolski, V. Doroshenko – who formed the new “Hrushevsky family.”

Third Period: Franko’s Illness, the End of the Old “Family”

In the last year of the old “family’s” existence, Franko continued to fulfill intellectual assignments from Hrushevsky on matters of key significance in the public life of Ukraine. In June 1906, he wrote an article for the St. Petersburg Ukrainsky Vestnik on Austrian policy [121].

In January 1907, during Hrushevsky’s struggle against Dnieper regional particularism, when B. Hrinchenko and S. Yefremov were publishing in Kyiv their journal Nova Hromada as a counterpoint to LNV, Franko, in his literary life reviews for Rada, criticized this journal. This became one of the reasons for the eventual break between the Kyiv critic and Hrushevsky and his Visnyk. In response, S. Yefremov wrote a critical review of Visnyk in Kyivski Visti [122]. Yefremov’s reaction indicates that he interpreted Franko’s article as expressing Hrushevsky’s own views. There seem to have been reasons for such conclusions [123].

That same year, in February, Franko defended Hrushevsky as editor-in-chief against attacks from I. Nechui-Levytsky regarding, in his view, linguistic and literary shortcomings in editing Visnyk and other NTSh publications. This issue had exceptional significance for the Ukrainian cause. It concerned the nationwide character of Hrushevsky’s publications’ orthography, which the Old Hromada members, represented by V. Naumenko, did not accept. Naumenko initiated the publication of Nechui’s extensive article in Ukraina. Franko initially did not want to respond to it:

"I read Nechui’s article in ‘Ukraina,’ but it is completely foolish, without the slightest understanding of history, which even in a superficial manner does not distinguish between language and orthography. What is there to say to such a man? What you said in ‘Rada’ was the most sensible" [124].

But Hrushevsky insisted, and Franko wrote a review. In April, the review was read collectively, together with Professor Ye. Chykalenko, S. Yefremov, and F. Matushevsky, who requested that the review be revised with additional factual material. Hrushevsky himself requested this [125]. Franko was hardly thrilled by the task. Half of May of the following month was spent revising the article [126]. Such examples gave Franko grounds to complain about being “exploited” by Hrushevsky.

Franko also wrote articles of a purely propagandistic – or what would today be called “promotional” – nature. These were reviews and commentaries of a “commissioned” type on the German-language History of Ukraine and collections of journalistic articles [127]. At different times, such materials were prepared for Hrushevsky by all his students: S. Tomashevsky, I. Krevetsky, I. Dzhidzhora, M. Zaliznyak. In the pages of Zapiski and Visnyk, they annotated Hrushevsky’s works or periodicals in which the professor participated. In 1906, Franko reviewed publications of Ukrainsky Vestnik, which was published in St. Petersburg and served as a mouthpiece for the Ukrainian faction in the Russian State Duma, where each issue printed articles by Hrushevsky. Franko devoted 90% of the volume to interpreting Hrushevsky’s ideas in a panegyrical spirit [128].

However, the era of the Franko–Hrushevsky cultural-political partnership in 1906–1907 was coming to an end. Franko’s health was declining, his productivity waned, mutual distrust grew, and sometimes there was even hidden aversion between the scholars. Tensions were exacerbated by Olga Franko (Khoruzhynska), who was a constant antagonist of the Hrushevsky family and repeatedly provoked loud domestic confrontations.

Even in 1907, Hrushevsky occasionally returned to the former practice of jointly discussing his writings with Franko, Hnatyuk, or Tomashevsky. For example, in November 1907, when relations between the two scholars had sharply worsened over Franko’s planned History of Literature, Hrushevsky invited Franko and Tomashevsky to hear the response to Professor Milkowich’s critique of the German-language edition of History of Ukraine. The reading lasted three days, and Hrushevsky was fully satisfied with the results. He gained additional respect for his work [129].

In the summer of 1907, the story of Franko’s History of Ukrainian Literature began. It was planned for NTSh publications but was never fully printed during Franko’s lifetime. At the beginning of August that year, Franko proposed to Hrushevsky to publish this work, to which the professor agreed and “considered” a plan for its publication [130]. On October 18, 1907, Franko presented his history of literature at a meeting of the philological section in the presence of M. Hrushevsky [131].

By November, rumors spread in Lviv that Hrushevsky had taken the editorship of LNV away from Franko and did not want to publish his History of Ukrainian Literature, showing apparent disregard during its presentation at the Society. V. Shchurat reportedly said this at the editorial office of Dilo, and I. Dzhidzhora conveyed it to Hrushevsky [132]. There is little doubt that this information came from Franko himself, because nine days later Ivan Yakovych wrote to Ye. Trehubov, repeating the same accusations:

"Perhaps I am just being foolish, or perhaps I am entirely mistaken in my suspicions, though they are based on facts. Prof. Hrushevsky belonged to those who most encouraged me to undertake the work of presenting a complete picture of our literature. In that direction, I have worked with all my strength and under very difficult circumstances, about which I need not tell you, for ten years in ‘L-n Visnyk’ and ‘Zapiski NTSh’…"

I worked continuously, beyond the strength of an ordinary person, until my strength was exhausted and I became a semi-idiot, as I am now, having lost my memory, with dulled sight and hearing, and my energy broken. I must confess to you [–] I had placed some hopes on my History of Ukrainian Literature, but then something happened that I did not at all expect: Prof. Hrushevsky, suddenly, went from being a great supporter and protector of my work to its ardent enemy. At first, he insisted that I publish it in L.-n. Visnyk, but when I pointed out that the work was too extensive and might be uninteresting for the readers of LNV, he remained silent but did everything possible to prevent me from publishing it at all…

That autumn I presented a synopsis of my work to the philological section of NTSh; everyone was very approving that such a work had finally been written. But Prof. Hrushevsky arrived, did not even listen to my synopsis, and said that all section publications were already filled for a couple of years and that the Society could not make a separate edition for the History of Literature. Whether he immediately considered me crazy for taking on a task for which I was entirely unfit, or whether he was envious so that I would not compete with his History, such a low feeling would be unworthy to even suggest for a man like him – yet here I stand with my work, looking foolish, merely provoking the curiosity of those who inquire about it.

…Due to the relocation of LNV to Kyiv, entirely controlled by Prof. Hrushevsky, my previous editorial work (together with a 200-crown monthly stipend) became a fiction, and I asked Hrushevsky to release me from it. He gladly agreed, and now, unwilling to hang my teeth on a stake, I had to plead to become a contributor to Dilo [133].

The Publishing Union, under Hrushevsky’s leadership, also refused to provide funds for printing. Franko asked Ye. Trehubov to intercede for the publication of his work in Kyiv.

Half a month later, with a similar request, I. Franko turned to F. Vovk about printing his book in St. Petersburg. In his letter to Vovk, Franko wrote about Hrushevsky much more cautiously, with proper respect:

"It goes without saying that the entire work is guided by the idea of the independence and originality of our culture, and I hope that my History of Ukrainian Literature will stand worthy beside Hrushevsky’s History of Ukraine, only with the difference that it is written vividly" [134].

In the postscript of this letter, Franko writes that Hrushevsky learned about his negotiations with Vovk and insists on printing the History of Literature in LNV, since even information about this was published for the public in the newspaper Dilo. However, Franko did not trust Hrushevsky’s promises and still wanted to publish the book in St. Petersburg. And since Hrushevsky had many trusted associates, he asked Vovk not to keep the letter, but to burn it (sic!). At this point, we already seem to have evidence of manifestations of his mental illness: a noticeable lack of logic, a seeming obsession with Hrushevsky’s alleged ill will, and a demonization of his figure.

How, in fact, did the problem stand? Was the work even ready for publication at that time?

The Outline of the History of Ukrainian Literature saw the light of day under the Ukrainian Publishing Union, which also published LNV. The complete History of Ukrainian Literature was printed only after Franko’s death, in the 40th volume of his fifty-volume collected works, as an unfinished work. The editors noted unfinished phrases and sentences in the text, yet they printed it because, even in this form, it has considerable scholarly value. Could this be why Hrushevsky did not print it? If he did not want to do so out of envy, as Franko believed, why then did he publish its introductory part in Zapiski NTSh in 1909? [135]

It is evident that M. Hrushevsky did not rush to print the History of Literature due to its inadequate scholarly level, caused by I. Franko’s illness. The latter “forced” its printing with Hrushevsky, possibly “blackmailing” him with the prospect of publication outside NTSh. Volodymyr Doroshenko dates Franko’s departure from collaboration with LNV to 1910, explaining it as resentment toward Hrushevsky for not publishing the Outline in Visnyk, although it was already scheduled to appear as a separate edition under the Publishing Union.

"Later, he became even more angry at Hrushevsky for including my review [136] of his Outline in LNV," wrote V. Doroshenko [137]. Franko believed that M. Hrushevsky had persuaded V. Doroshenko to give a negative review. But this was not so. Further in the same memoir, V. Doroshenko noted:

"On the contrary, [M. Hrushevsky], aware of all the flaws of this undoubtedly weak work, clearly affected by the illness of its illustrious author, asked me to comment on it as gently as possible. I did so, yet still did not satisfy Franko, who publicly complained that both Doroshenkos had ‘trashed’ his Outline, as Dmytro Doroshenko had also published his review of Franko’s book in Rada, also gently but without superlatives" [138].

These reviews and Franko’s wounded pride, according to V. Doroshenko, became the reason for Franko’s collaboration with the newspaper Dilo and his negative reviews of History of Ukraine-Rus, which were published separately under the title Contributions to the “History of Ukraine-Rus”.

There are hardly serious grounds for claims by some researchers [139], relying on the impressions of the already ill Franko, that M. Hrushevsky blocked the History of Literature of his scholarly colleague out of fear of competition with his own History of Literature. If Hrushevsky already had a popular Illustrated History for M. Arkas’ History of Ukraine, for the History of Ukrainian Literature he only had vague plans, realized after the liberation struggles of 1917–1921.

Franko returned to the matter of publishing his History outside Lviv once again in a letter to Ye. Trehubov at the end of December 1907. Domanytsky informed Franko about the impracticality of printing in St. Petersburg with Vovk. Ivan Yakovych wanted to publish in Kyiv, but realistically it was still more feasible to publish with Hrushevsky [140].

In a letter to Hrushevsky in early January 1908, Franko essentially confirms our suspicion that his History was not yet written at that time. He wrote that he agreed to the St. Petersburg “offer” and its conditions, but the History of Literature still required thorough revision and could not be published quickly. Franko suffered from pain and nervous irritability, so he could only perform mechanical work and was incapable of intellectual labor. At the end of the letter, he wrote to Hrushevsky:

"And the publication of the history of literature is not urgent for me; until I revise it thoroughly, I will not release it, so the Petersburgers can be refused in the meantime" [141].

Hrushevsky’s reaction to Franko’s separate actions regarding the publication of the History of Ukrainian Literature was quite painful. Hrushevsky was offended, for it seems he had never intended not to publish Franko’s work. At the end of November, the professor discussed the matter with Tomashivsky, who pacified him, suggesting that Franko should be forgiven and not held a grudge [142]. Yet Hrushevsky treated the issue seriously. He even obtained Franko’s signature on a joint statement declaring the absence of any personal grievances toward Hrushevsky and the falsity of circulating rumors. Franko signed this statement, which was then published in Dilo. Later, Franko explained the appearance of this joint statement as due to Hrushevsky’s pressure, which he felt powerless to resist. While Tomashivsky deemed it appropriate to agree to the publication of Franko’s work in St. Petersburg, Hrushevsky would not consent. Presumably, he understood that such publication would negatively affect the Society’s authority [143].

From the end of 1907, Franko increasingly distanced himself from Hrushevsky. He did not attend the language commission and the section meeting on November 27 with Hnatyuk [144]. At a meeting of the executive board, Franko and Hnatyuk put to a vote the reinstatement of O. Barvinsky in the Society, following articles by I. Verkhratsky in Ruslan directed against the Society. This move was apparently at Hrushevsky’s wish. However, when Mikhailo Serhiyovych left for an extended stay in Kyiv, a “depression” set in at the Society, most notably manifested by Franko [145]. Franko and Hnatyuk decided to reinstate O. Barvinsky in the Society. But after Hrushevsky returned to Lviv, he insisted that the decision regarding Barvinsky not be reversed. Franko was absent from this executive meeting [146]. At the same time, it appears that Hrushevsky reduced Franko’s salary, though Franko had hoped to retain his previous income [147].

In a state of irritation toward Hrushevsky, Franko wrote a letter to the writer N. Kybalchych, who had complained about the rejection of her novella for publication in LNV:

"I had a conversation with Prof. Hrushevsky about editing Visnyk in 1908 and about the downright scandalous things that had been printed there over the whole year [this phrase strongly recalls S. Yefremov’s review from the previous year – I. H.], and he, in his defense, knows only one thing to say: that nothing better is sent to him. I do not know what works you sent him, but still, I think you could not have written anything worse than what was published there by Lesya Ukrainka, Khotkevych, and both Hrushevskys" [emphasis by I. H.] [148].

Was N. Kybalchych really comparable in talent to Lesya Ukrainka or Hnat Khotkevych?

After this, Franko’s illness became more evident. At the end of January, he was confined to bed with kidney problems, and in the first decade of March, he traveled to Lipik (Croatia) for treatment [149].

Volodymyr Doroshenko also dates the shift in Franko’s character and creativity to the beginning of 1908:

"From the sanatorium in Lipik," – wrote V. Doroshenko – "he returned physically and mentally broken, yet his body was so strong that the terrible disease, which immediately destroyed others, could not overcome him, and the giant broken by it lived and worked for another eight years. But he was no longer the same Franko who created Moses and other gems of Ukrainian literature. Unfortunately, the illness left deep traces on his soul, which inevitably affected his creativity… His creative power, once so mighty, now manifested only in the quantity of printed works, not their quality, while an overwhelming, almost purely brave ambition, previously unseen, took hold. A desire to assert himself, a longing for praise of his works, appeared. At the same time, an increasing reluctance toward other writers as potential competitors arose, a certain bold envy, and a constant fear that he was not appreciated, undervalued. It seemed that all those negative forces, dormant in the depths of his soul and previously restrained by his healthy, strong, culturally disciplined spirit, now surfaced" [150].

In April, Hrushevsky decided to write an article about Franko’s illness [151] to prevent the spread of unnecessary rumors. In reality, this was likely to make people less credulous of Franko’s accounts of his relations with Hrushevsky and matters in the Society. A month later, Franko returned to Lviv, but his illness progressed, and he was in a Lviv hospital. Hrushevsky recorded visits to Franko in his diary:

"With Moch[ulsky] and Hnatyuk, I visited Franko – in his cell. He received us gladly and was fairly coherent, though occasionally drifting into his own ideas – that his 'Hist[ory] of Literature' had been rejected by Drahomanov, that he had 'heard' about the discovery of various manuscripts, including Rogatynets" [152].

This was Hrushevsky’s first recorded diary mention of Franko’s hallucinations. Over the next two years, until 1910, there were about ten such episodes. Chronologically:

– 31.05.1908: «In the afternoon, Moch[ulsky] came for me, and we went together to Franko… He was very confused – talking about visions of ’Konashevych’ – on Sagaidachny, Khmelnytsky – with a beard, about Jesuit plots against him, about a house that gives no peace.»

– 02.06.1908: «Franko now had a new idée fixe: he was Leonardo Polyut, his father Roberto B., his sister Cleo de Merod, lived in Naples for five years, then traveled across the ocean on a cayman, and the cayman took him to the top of the Himalayas. He recounted this to me on Sunday.»

– 22.06.1908: «Today I visited Franko – but he was quite delirious (talked about Antony, who lived in the 9th century and was with Cyril in Gregolnytsia)» [153].

From June 29, 1908, Franko was already at home, but his morbid visions did not leave him. One of his fantasies very much resembled the illness of the main character in Thomas Mann’s novel Doctor Faustus:

"Dr. Franko came in the morning, spoke quite reasonably, only when the conversation turned to his weakness, he smiled mysteriously and said that his disease was not natural, but demonic, and that no one would believe it if he told about it" [154].

Almost identical sad impressions of the sick I. Franko were also recorded by V. Doroshenko. In his memoir-article about the Lviv Newspaper (LNV) he wrote:

*"Franko repeatedly experienced various hallucinations; it seemed to him that invisible spirits were speaking with him, and while talking with you, he always had an alert expression, as if he were listening to something. He was listening to conversations of the spirits with him. And even among the arguments he used to defend or refute some opinion, one could often hear from him that he had reached it by a supernatural path. The spirits had told him about it.

Such an argument usually appeared unexpectedly for those around him: he spoke relevantly, argued logically, reasonably, and suddenly referred to an invisible force. The spirits, of course, troubled Franko, giving him no peace for even a minute… Especially the spirit of Drahomanov made itself felt. It greatly tormented Franko because he had opposed his teacher. Therefore, in conversation with Franko and in interactions with him, one always had to be careful not to hurt his delicate soul. And this obviously made relations with him very burdensome for a normal person"* [155].

After consulting with M. Mochulsky and V. Kozlovsky, Hrushevsky decided to convene a medical council. Franko agreed, but at the same time continued to “stir confusion”: he said that Mochulsky was stealing from him and that he was being summoned to Vienna regarding his pension [156].

The council took place in the first decade of December 1908, and about its results M. Hrushevsky recorded:

"Kobrynsky reported the matter from the (Sunday) council regarding Franko. Franko became wary, behaved very suspiciously, and said that he was completely healthy, nothing was lacking. Kobrynsky and Malyshevsky acknowledged that he should be left as he is; it would be good to have more authority, but Franko does not allow it, and it cannot be taken by force either" [157].

From the beginning of 1909, Hrushevsky began to regard Franko’s works written at that time with increased suspicion. Because of this, he possibly stopped accepting some of Franko’s translations for publication, about which Franko complained to the manager of the Society’s bookstore, A. Dermal [158]. And soon his opinion that Franko’s inadequate behavior would reflect on his works was confirmed. In July 1909, Franko proposed at a meeting of the NTSH section to publish an unseen poem by A. Mickiewicz in the Zapiski. When Hrushevsky asked how he knew it was a manuscript by A. Mickiewicz, Franko replied that “Mickiewicz himself came and told me” [159]. Hrushevsky assigned Tomashivsky and Mochulsky to conduct a scholarly examination of Franko’s writing and the possibility of printing the “unpublished poem of Mickiewicz” [Hrushevsky’s quotation marks – I. H.] [160].

The result of Mochulsky’s examination was discouraging for Franko:

"On Friday I received from Dr. Tomashivsky a drama to which Dr. Franko gave the title ‘Wielka utrata’ and the introductory article written also by Dr. Franko," Mochulsky wrote in a letter to Hrushevsky. "I have just read the article and the first ‘widok’ of the drama and several scenes from the second ‘widok,’ and this is fully sufficient for me to form a judgment whether Mickiewicz is the author of this drama or not. Franko’s article made a painful impression on me. It is hard to believe that it was written by a man with such iron logic as Dr. Franko! One can see the decline of his mental powers. And when comparing this article with his recently published articles, the decline is very significant… Overall, the article, as is evident from my notes, almost at every step suffers from a lack of logic, is written chaotically, without coherence or plan. Sometimes a spark of consciousness appears in it, but it shines only briefly and fades" [161].

Despite the unequivocal warning of the mistaken attribution to the Polish literary classic, I. Franko nevertheless published the pseudo-Mickiewicz poem at the beginning of 1914 at his own expense in the Dilo printing house [162], provoking ridicule and mockery among Polish literati.

Hrushevsky tried to avoid public discussions about disagreements between him and Franko as much as possible. However, his attempts to mitigate the problem did not produce positive results. Franko complained about Hrushevsky to many people in Lviv, Kyiv, and St. Petersburg. Rumors about Hrushevsky’s injustice toward Franko spread at an incredible speed. In the spring of 1909, in Kyiv, Hrushevsky constantly encountered conversations about Franko being offended by the Society.

When arriving on April 2 to the office of the LNV at 20 Prorizna Street, Hrushevsky learned about Franko’s unexpected visit and his strange behavior [163]. The next day, Kyiv Ukrainians were impressed by Franko when they saw him at the funeral of P. Kosach. He again publicly fantasized that he was going to Odesa to “rescue some Fedorovsky imprisoned there for 10 years by Komar [M. Komarov – I. H.] and Sasha [O. Hrushevsky – I. H.]” [164]. On April 4, he was again among the community and left a sad impression with his state.

"Trehubov was terribly upset and feared that Franko was not well disposed toward me," Hrushevsky noted in his diary [165]. The arrival of Franko and his “delusions” unpleasantly affected the professor, and he deliberately went on April 8 to the Ukrainian Club to publicly demonstrate “his friendly relations” toward Franko. However, Franko, who was supposed to be there, did not come [166].

It seems that during Franko’s illness, Hrushevsky constantly expected some unpleasant incidents from him. And from time to time, they did occur.

"Minor troubles again – they pursue him while traveling," the professor noted a few days before leaving Kryvorivnia, "at night Franko asked to stay overnight – Miltsia thought, the boy, and did not accept; then Volyansky [the parish priest of Kryvorivnia – I. H.] wrote that Franko himself came to him at noon" [167].

Further, with such health, Franko could not work in the governing structures of the NTSH. This was unpleasant for Hrushevsky, but on May 1, 1909, he was forced to remove Franko from the Directorate of the Publishing Society in his presence [168].

Hrushevsky did not fully accept accusations against him in the sense of any restriction imposed on Franko. Hrushevsky reacted immediately when any of the writers took rumors as reality and published something that corresponded to Franko’s moods. For instance, H. Khotkevych in his review allowed himself to make reproaches against the editorial office of the LNV and engaged in “iconographic writing on the occasion of Franko’s thorns on the crown,” and the professor immediately approached the author to express his dissatisfaction. However, Hrushevsky did not succeed in “convincing” H. Khotkevych [169]. The latter had his own grievances against Hrushevsky, and evidently, he felt solidarity with Franko.

Franko, having a large family, constantly needed money. At that time, he had two sons studying at the university and a third son and a daughter at the gymnasium. From the NTSH, he received a monthly salary of 200 crowns. After 1907, there were very few honoraria. He could only complain to the Society and to Hrushevsky primarily about the reduction in family income. Somehow, Franko tried to compensate for the lack of earnings from honoraria through reprints of his old works. With proposals for reprints, he repeatedly approached Hrushevsky from the beginning to the end of spring 1910, offering to republish Monuments of the Ukrainian Language with the addition of new publications by himself. Hrushevsky was forced to refuse due to lack of funds [170].

Yet he still took care of Franko’s stable financial support, as far as the Society’s budget and other financial structures under the professor’s control allowed. He did not distort the truth when he wrote, on the tenth anniversary of Franko’s death, that:

"We [and primarily myself, M. Hrushevsky – I. H.] are his supporters, and we made it a point of honor not to let him fall into trouble and be humiliated by people who obviously sought his degradation. Franko did not have to go to them [the Polish and Ukrainian populist communities – I. H.] to bow. On the contrary, from that time [1897 – I. H.] until his death, he had the opportunity to work exclusively for the Ukrainian people, in the Ukrainian language" [171].

In October 1906, in response to Franko’s complaints about unpaid money from the Publishing Society, Hrushevsky, “taking into account his needs,” proposed funds from other sources [172]. On October 8, 1908, the Society’s board approved, on Hrushevsky’s suggestion, 1000 crowns for Franko [173]. At the end of April 1909, at the General Assembly of the NTSH, evidently on Hrushevsky’s initiative, Borkovsky was to make a contribution toward a lifelong pension for Franko [174]. The matter of Franko’s pension was also raised at the Society’s meeting in June 1909 [175]. Finally, even during the well-known internal conflict of 1913, which led to M. Hrushevsky’s resignation as chairman of the Society, the professor found time to persuade his supporters in the conflict to find money for Franko – “even to borrow, and to pay 400 crowns” [176]. Meanwhile, he received this sum from Dnister into his account in this insurance society. This was a response to the last, at least published, letter of Franko dated November 24, 1913. Interestingly, these 400 crowns, which Franko needed for one “literary enterprise” [177], he spent precisely on publishing the pseudo-Mickiewicz poem.

Despite his illness, Franko occasionally wrote something for the Zapiski NTSH and the Visnyk. Though now, from 1908 onward, he met with Hrushevsky much less frequently. He began to more often visit the Lviv establishment of Breitmaier for beer [178]. Hrushevsky noted these changes in the writer’s behavior in his diary.

Sometimes, moments of clarity returned to Franko. He gave normal reports at the Society’s meetings, wrote entirely reasonable small articles, and translations from foreign literature. In December, at a meeting of the Archaeographic Commission and section, Franko read his article for the Zapiski, “not interesting,” but read it aloud, “overall making a better impression; only that he had lost weight” [179]. A week later, at the section, Franko read another article, also, in Hrushevsky’s opinion, “not interesting,” but “sound” [180]. In March 1910, Franko brought a translation of Maleagra for the Visnyk to Hrushevsky and did not stir confusion. Nevertheless, he was still troubled by hallucinations (voices), which prevented him from working [181].

His mental illness affected his entire body; his hands twitched, he could not write, and he was troubled by headaches. In May 1910, Franko told Hrushevsky that he was now working on freeing his hands, and until they recovered, he postponed all work [182].

Franko’s resentment toward M. Hrushevsky for the critical assessment of the Sketches of the History of Ukrainian Literature in the pages of the LNV turned into a desire to repay the professor in kind by submitting critical remarks on his History of Ukraine-Rus (IUR). Franko was not satisfied with their publication in Dilo in 1911, and having collected all submissions, he published them separately in a brochure entitled Contributions to the History of Ukraine-Rus [183]. The literary scholar actually selected shortcomings not only from the IUR but also included in his review the Essays on the History of the Ukrainian People and the Illustrated History of Ukraine.

This work has a somewhat chaotic character. Franko initially writes about prehistoric times of the ancient Ukrainian state, then moves upward chronologically, and in the end returns again to the earliest times, concluding with mentions of the Scythians. The work has a descriptive appearance; in fact, it more closely resembles marginal notes of a source-based nature. The author cites at length, over several pages, documents and historical materials that M. Hrushevsky did not use in his research.

Ultimately, it cannot be asserted that I. Franko’s sole goal was to critique the IUR. On the contrary, on the pages of Contributions, one can find a number of positive conclusions and, overall, a favorable evaluation of Mykhailo Hrushevsky’s historical monographs by Ivan Yakovych. Franko explains the reason for his engagement with the IUR by the absence of serious reviews of Hrushevsky’s fundamental works. He wrote that he wanted first for himself, and then for the public, to clarify “the significance of that great, one might say, hitherto unparalleled scientific work on Ukrainian soil” [184].

Franko considered the German-language review by Milkowicz “written by a man who, in his own work on a similar topic, provided proof of very little and primitive knowledge of the subject, and dealt with the serious work of Prof. Hrushevsky either frivolously, maliciously, or with bias” [185]. Franko’s emphasis was only on those moments in Ukrainian history where his view differed from that of M. Hrushevsky.

By citing a large number of references in Byzantine literature about the Ants, which M. Hrushevsky did not use in the IUR, Franko does not dispute the main point with him – the Ants were, he also undoubtedly considered, a Slavic tribe. Only, unlike Hrushevsky, he thought it possible to establish a genetic connection between the Ants and the later Vyatichi, as well as the migration of the Radimichi from Poland [186]. Hrushevsky was dominated by the doctrine of linking the Ants only with the proto-Ukrainian tribes of the future Rus’ land.

Regarding the assessments of Old Rus’ merchants, whom M. Hrushevsky considered not only a trading but also an equally military class, Franko rejected such a combination – arguing that such merchants would in that case be robbers, and the author of the IUR was rather correct. As for the assessments of Kyi’s activity, Franko’s views are closer to the modern level of scholarship. Hrushevsky generally considered Kyi a legendary, not a historical, figure [187].

The same applies to attitudes toward the Norman theory. M. Hrushevsky was a convinced autochthonist and an extreme anti-Normanist. Franko, on the contrary, believed that one could not reject the Norman theory when discussing the formation of the Old Rus’ state. Here again, it seems that Franko was closer to the truth than Hrushevsky. The pre-imposed autochthonous Ukrainian theory of the origin of the state conflicted with indisputable facts about the Norman ethnic composition of the military retinue of the first Kyiv princes. For Hrushevsky, it was about the coherence of the constructed picture of the state’s formation and its “ethnic purity.”

Most modern historians do not reject the plausibility of Vladimir’s baptism in Korsun, which Franko agreed with, but Hrushevsky opposed [188]. Franko also disputes with M. Hrushevsky and O. Shakhmatov regarding the lists and editions of the earliest Old Rus’ chronicles, which, in his opinion, (both the Hypatian and Laurentian) were written in Kyiv.

In subsequent sections, Franko’s remarks mainly concern some nuances of interpretation that do not affect the evaluative essence of historical events.

The conclusion of Contributions is particularly interesting. Franko begins with the positive aspects of M. Hrushevsky’s work, but ends with a critique, which, in our view, represents the quintessence and main message of the entire literary scholar’s work. We quote the main part:

*“Prof. Hrushevsky undoubtedly belongs to the most prolific and active writers of contemporary Ukraine, and, besides scientific and journalistic work, he is forced by circumstances to devote much time and effort to various educational organizations, in which he occupies a prominent position almost everywhere. He is not only an authoritative historian and university professor but also an editor and contributor to numerous scientific and literary publications, head of various societies and commissions, and in the organizations of the Society, he is an indefatigable initiator and very knowledgeable debater. The sum of intellectual work that this extraordinary man invests in his life must fill everyone with admiration, especially those who have had the opportunity to know him more closely.

It should be added that Prof. Hrushevsky is not at all the type of scholar like German professors, who know only their specialty and very little of human life outside it; on the contrary, Prof. Hrushevsky is a famous organizer, though his extraordinarily quick practical mind prevents him from becoming an agitator, saving him from any fervor and what Russians call “uvlechenie.” This mental disposition of our author is also reflected in his style, which can be called “cold prose.” The author places the main emphasis on analyzing historical phenomena but lacks the gift of grouping historical facts; therefore, despite the deep thoughtfulness of his plan, important historical events, and even more prominent historical figures, are submerged in a mass of details and reasoning. By focusing more on relationships than on living persons, the author must everywhere fill gaps in historical knowledge with his reasoning and combinations, sometimes not entirely successful. Among the characteristics of his style is the predominance of abstract terms over concrete words, sometimes even forcing ordinary language”* [189].

Thus, according to Franko, the greatest shortcomings of M. Hrushevsky lie not in the content and essence of what he wrote but in the form of presentation: the style and language of his works. Ivan Yakovych does not provide examples of the lack of the “gift of grouping historical facts,” “reasoning” and “combinations,” but focuses only on linguistic shortcomings. Although logically, he should have cited at least some examples. It seems that even Franko himself feels some unease over his critique, as in the end he once again presents a hagiographic account of Hrushevsky’s activity and work.

“The colossal work,” writes I. Franko, “which Prof. Hrushevsky presents year after year to the Ukrainian public, deserves to be received with due attention, especially since it is built on such solid and broad foundations, which no criticism can shake. That some errors or misjudgments appear here and there in such a colossal structure is inevitable in any human undertaking” [190].

In terms of factual content, Franko’s Contributions can be regarded not so much as criticism of M. Hrushevsky and his Histories, but rather as a source-based supplement to gaps, inaccuracies, and as polemics over controversial issues that can have multiple resolutions. Ideologically and conceptually, Franko can be considered a full ally of M. Hrushevsky.

During the 1913 conflict within the NTSH regarding Hrushevsky’s resignation, Franko was on the side of the dissenting faction. However, this is not surprising, considering that opposition to the NTSH chairman came not only from the older generation of members (S. Tomashivsky, V. Hnatyuk, S. Rudnytsky, I. Trush), but also had the sympathy of middle-generation students (I. Krypyakevych, I. Krevetsky, and to some extent M. Korduba). Unfortunately, in his later years, Franko’s behavior and reactions to events were not entirely adequate or in accordance with objective circumstances.

Soviet literary scholars attempted to demonstrate ideological differences between Franko and Hrushevsky, especially in Franko’s later years, relying on his letter to V. Doroshenko of November 4, 1915, where he wrote about “false historical constructions of M. Hrushevsky, whose weakness and instability are already felt by every historian” [191]. Today it is axiomatic that both scholars were independent in their scientific and socio-political views, recognizing the distinctiveness of the Ukrainian historical process. The main points of disagreement, identified by L. Vinar [192], were: the Scythian period of Ukrainian history, the Norman theory (which Franko recognized and could do so legitimately, but Hrushevsky did not), ancient Ukrainian colonization, B. Khmelnytsky’s Moldavian policy, and some minor issues that did not touch on essential problems, on which the scholars were in complete agreement.

Unpleasant moments in communication never came to the public or appeared in official publications. Neither in Franko’s later years nor after his death did Hrushevsky express grievances or complain about his old comrade, as he did even regarding his teacher V. Antonovych. On the contrary, Hrushevsky’s evaluations of Franko’s devoted work were accompanied by the highest epithets. Hrushevsky encouraged leading Galician historians of literature and cultural life, M. Voznyak and K. Studynsky, to study sources related to Franko’s socio-political activity. And during the celebration of his sixtieth birthday in 1926, Hrushevsky concluded his speech with lines from Franko’s famous prologue to the poem Moses.

Instead of conclusions

M. Hrushevsky, already in the 1920s, essentially laid the foundations of Franko studies. Besides his own article in Ukraine (1926) [193], the academician encouraged a number of literary and cultural historians of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, primarily in Lviv, to engage in the collection, systematization, and publication of materials on the life and activities of I. Franko. During this period, publications by M. Voznyak, K. Studynsky, Ya. Hordynsky, M. Korduba, and others appeared in the editions of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (VUAN) and the Shevchenko Scientific Society (NTSH) [194]. In the sense of historical Franko studies, these publications determined, for eighty years ahead, the directions for the study of Franko’s life, and were only partially supplemented by historically oriented publications (not to mention literary scholarship – in this sphere, the Franko studies achievements of the 1920s are incomparably higher) published during the Soviet era.

Our aim in this article was not to examine in detail all aspects of the multifaceted collaboration between M. Hrushevsky and I. Franko, for this would have required a voluminous monograph. Our task was to introduce new, little-known source materials into circulation and, in particular, to utilize Hrushevsky’s diary entries.

We did not wish to render final judgments on the deeds and actions of the scholars in terms of their creative and public relations. We are dealing with people of extraordinary creative power, who knew their own worth. In relationships among great personalities, even when developed quite successfully at times, problems, complications, misunderstandings, and internal grievances inevitably arise at various stages. However, these grievances never surfaced publicly, remaining behind the scenes. They understood that without decades of fruitful joint work, Ukrainian scholarship, which today proudly bears the names of Mykhailo Hrushevsky and Ivan Franko, would not have emerged.

Notes

1. Why, for example, did M. Rudnytsky, a person who still remembered the living historian in Lviv, write about the “grasping hands” of M. Hrushevskyi exploiting I. Franko? Rudnytsky M. Creative Workdays of Ivan Franko // Zhovten. – 1956. – No. 6. – P. 81.

2. Vozniak M. Life and Work of Ivan Franko. – Kyiv, 1955.

3. Franko-Kliuchko H. Ivan Franko and His Family. Memoirs. – Toronto, 1956. – P. 131. The fact that the relevant authorities were interested in this very interpretation is evidenced by the reprint of these memoirs in the Soviet-controlled journal Dnipro (1956. – No. 6).

4. Franko T. About My Father. – Kyiv, 1956. – P. 124, 140.

5. Biletsky O., Bass I., Kiselyov O. Ivan Franko. Life and Work. – Kyiv, 1956; Bass I. Ivan Franko. Biography. – Moscow, 1957. – 352 pp.; Ivan Franko. Collection of [Memoirs] – Lviv, 1948; Dey O. The Living Franko // Ivan Franko. Collection. – Lviv, 1948; Bass I., Kaspruk A. Ivan Franko: Life and Creative Path. – Kyiv, 1983; Dey O. Ivan Franko. – Kyiv, 1981.

6. Vynar L. Historical Works of Ivan Franko // Collection of Ukrainian Literary Gazette. – Munich, 1957. – P. 48–63; Doroshenko V. Ivan Franko and Mykhailo Hrushevskyi // Suchasnist. – Munich, 1962. – No. 1. – P. 16–36.

7. Vynar L. Mykhailo Hrushevskyi and the Shevchenko Scientific Society, 1892–1930. Munich: Dniprova Khvylia, 1970. – 110 pp.; Dombrovskyi O. Critical Remarks of I. Franko on M. Hrushevskyi’s “History” // Ukrainian Historian. – 1970. – Parts 1–3. – P. 122–123.

8. Burlaka H. Collection of Letters of M. Hrushevskyi with I. Franko [Introduction, Publication, Commentary] // The Great Ukrainian / Collection. – Kyiv, Veselka, 1992. – P. 244–260; The same. M. Hrushevskyi and I. Franko [Preface, Publication of Letters, Commentary] // Ukrainian Literary Studies. – 1993. – Issue 58. – P. 28–43; The same. Letters to Ivan Franko [Preface, Publication of Letters, Commentary] // Correspondence of Mykhailo Hrushevskyi. Series: Epistolary Sources on Hrushevskyi Studies. – Vol. 1. – Kyiv; New York; Paris; Lviv; Toronto. – P. 16–24, 76–102, 296–309; The same. Letters of Ivan Franko [Preface, Publication of Letters, Commentary] // Ibid. – Vol. 3. – P. 11–27, 293–317, 566–579.

9. Kvit S. Ivan Franko and Mykhailo Hrushevskyi // Slovo i Chas. – 1991. – No. 1. – P. 61–70. In general, Serhiy Kvit, like V. Doroshenko and L. Vynar, combats the Soviet myth of the eternal enmity between M. Hrushevskyi and I. Franko. However, he refutes it only for the early and middle stages of their relationship – 1894–1906. Regarding the last stage of their relationship, he still considers M. Hrushevskyi responsible for its deterioration, due to his envious character, indifference to health, and arrogant attitude towards I. Franko. Ultimately, Kvit’s conclusion can be fully agreed with: “Perhaps Hrushevskyi and Franko would have been very surprised to learn that their descendants would call them enemies. They lived and worked for a common idea, and the frictions were part of human relations” (Kvit S. Ivan Franko and Mykhailo Hrushevskyi – P. 70).

10. Franko I. Collected Works in Fifty Volumes. – Vol. 49. – Kyiv, 1986. – P. 508.

11. Franko I. Collected Works in Fifty Volumes. – Vol. 49. – Kyiv, 1986. – P. 376 (letter dated 14.01.1893).

12. Ibid. – P. 523.

13. Burlaka H. Letters of M. Hrushevskyi to O. Konysky // Ukrainian Historian. – 1994. – Parts 1–4. – P. 117–134; Sytnyk O. Letters of V. Antonovych to M. Hrushevskyi // Ukrainian Historian. – 1991–1992, 1993. – Parts 3–4, 1–4 (110–115). – P. 396–411; Parts 1–4 (116–119). – P. 157–169.

14. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 335. – P. 1–4 (letter of O. Barvinsky dated 24.02.1894).

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid. – Case 754. – Sheet 3.

17. Ibid. – Case 754. – Sheet 3 (letter of S. Smal-Stotsky dated 15.02.1895).

18. Ibid. – Sheet 4.

19. Correspondence of Mykhailo Hrushevskyi – Vol. 3. – P. 80 (letter dated 11.10.1894).

20. Ibid. – P. 86 (letter dated 4.12. old style 1894).

21. Ibid. – P. 92 (letter dated 24(12).12.1894).

22. Ibid. – P. 90 (letter dated 21(9).12.1894).

23. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 11 (letter to M. Drahomanov dated 1.01.1895).

24. Correspondence of Mykhailo Hrushevskyi. – Vol. 3. – P. 159 (letter dated 25(13).05.1897).

25. Ibid. – Vol. 1.– P. 66 (letter dated 29.05.1897).

26. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 112 (letter dated 16.08.1898). In this year, M. Hrushevskyi saved him from poverty and practically gave a push to a new, financially secure stage of life.

27. Burlaka H. Mistaken Addressee of One Letter of Ivan Franko, as well as Clarification of the Dating of Several of His Letters to Mykhailo Hrushevskyi // Notes of the Shevchenko Scientific Society. – Vol. CCL. Philological Section Works. – Lviv, 2005. – P. 776–779. The author of the article specifically paid attention to the form of address and the stylistics of the closing phrases. I. Franko never, in all 45 letters, ended a letter with the phrase “I Kiss You,” instead using not intimate but polite formulas: “I wish you all the best and bow to you, Madam,” “I send to you, Madam, and to your family my sincere greetings,” “With deep respect, Iv. Franko,” “I greet you cordially,” “I greet you sincerely,” “I bow, Iv. Franko,” “I remain with true respect, Yours, Iv. Franko.” Burlaka concluded that the letter was initially sent to O. Makovey, who, not wanting to repeat the content, forwarded it to M. Hrushevskyi. Thus, it ended up in the archive of the head of the Shevchenko Scientific Society. Therefore, in the third volume of Correspondence of Mykhailo Hrushevskyi, where the entire array of letters from I. Franko to M. Hrushevskyi is located, this letter was not included.

28. Correspondence of Mykhailo Hrushevskyi… – Vol. 1. – P. 95 (letter dated 20/21.10.1906).

29. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheet 103 (record dated 19.01.1906).

30. Ibid. – P. 96.

31. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 113 (letter dated 26.08.1898).

32. “In the morning I wrote a response to the ‘Kiev Responses’ [referring to the final submission of the article ‘On Polish-Ukrainian Relations’. – I. G.], my wife read it to Franko and I sent it. Franko, as usual, only praised it and said nothing.” (Diary entry dated 15.07.1905. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheet 86).

33. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 115 (26.08.1898).

34. “Franko brought invitations to a confidential meeting of the National-Democratic Party; we discussed whether we should go, I decided not to go. Franko has a meeting regarding the revival of the Radical Party; I discouraged joining it,” “Franko reported about the Pavlyk jubilees and the revival of the Radical Party. I was surprised at Franko’s mindset that he got involved, but I did not tell him this,” “…I talked with Franko about organization – instead of the Radical Party, some broader union, but he was already discouraged.” Diary entries dated 12(25), 8(21), 10(23).12.1904. (Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheets 51 rev., 45, 45 rev.).

35. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheet 134 rev.

36. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 115.

37. Hrushevskyi M. Works: In Fifty Volumes. – Lviv, 2002. – Vol. 1. – P. 213.

38. Ibid. – P. 317.

39. Ibid. – P. 394–395.

40. Hrushevskyi M. Oleksandr Konysky. 18(30) August 1836 – 29/November (11/December) 1900 // Hrushevskyi M. Works: In Fifty Volumes. – Vol. 1. – P. 227–233.

41. Franko I. On the Life and Activity of Oleksandr Konysky // Franko I. Selected Works in Three Volumes. – Drohobych: Kolo, 2005. – Vol. 3. – P. 276–298.

42. Determination of the editor of the commentary, O. Bahan (Franko I. Selected Works in Three Volumes… – P. 664). The only point with which one cannot agree with the author of the notes is that M. Hrushevskyi in 1917 was “a student of M. Drahomanov.” In fact, it was quite the opposite. Hrushevskyi helped Franko rid himself of the ideological influence of M. Drahomanov. Later, Hrushevskyi’s admiration for Drahomanov’s figure was connected not with the national aspects of the latter’s work, but with the proclamation of a European choice and the establishment in the center of Europe of a new emigration intellectual center, independent of Bolshevik censorship.

43. Franko I. Selected Works… – P. 409–417.

44. Ibid. – P. 415–416.

45. First published in Franko’s journal Zhytte i Slovo (1895, Vol. 4). See: Franko I. Selected Works… Vol. 3. – P. 388–389.

46. Ibid. – P. 393.

47. Ibid. – P. 369–370.

48. Kosach-Kryvyniuk O. Lesya Ukrainka. Chronology of Life and Works. – New York, 1970. – P. 689.

49. Ibid. – P. 692.

50. Ibid. – P. 696 (letter dated 16.06.1903).

51. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheets 117 rev., 119, 120 rev.

52. An interesting ending of the phrase, which seemingly predicted the change in M. Hrushevskyi’s attitude toward M. Drahomanov in the future. When the liberation struggles of 1917–1921 were defeated, the need for social transformation came to the forefront for the Socialist Revolutionary Party, which was then represented by the professor. At that time, the issue of political emigration again became relevant. Hrushevskyi changed his negative view of Drahomanov to a positive one and published two works that became, for most historians, evidence of the long-term positive attitude of the outstanding historian toward the Geneva émigré (Hrushevskyi M. From the Origins of the Ukrainian Socialist Movement: M. Drahomanov and the Geneva Socialist Circle. – Vienna, 1922. – 212 pp.; Ibid. The Mission of Drahomanov // Ukraine. – 1926. – No. 2–3. – P. 3–28). Ya. Hrytsak, in his latest book on I. Franko, writes that in the 1920s M. Hrushevskyi, in the pantheon of Ukrainian figures of the new era, elevated only M. Drahomanov, and mentioned Ivan Yakovych only in 1926, during the celebration of his 60th anniversary (Hrytsak Ya. The Prophet in His Homeland. Franko and His Community. – Kyiv: Krytyka, 2006. – P. 428). We think this is not entirely correct. During 1924–1928, Hrushevskyi consistently wrote a series of articles about M. Maksymovych, P. Kulish, M. Kostomarov, V. Antonovych, M. Drahomanov, and I. Franko. Therefore, there is reason to say that the academician built the key figures of the new Ukraine as an organic whole, without isolating specifically M. Drahomanov.

53. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheet 120 rev.

54. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 311.

55. Preface [to the edition M. Drahomanov. Letters to Iv. Franko and Others, 1881–1886. – Lviv, 1906] // Franko I. Selected Works in Three Volumes. – Vol. 3. – P. 589–595, 596–610.

56. Ibid. – P. 603.

57. Franko I. Mykhailo Drahomanov. Lost Time. Ukrainians under the Moscow Tsardom (1654–1876). With a preface by M. Pavlyk. – Lviv, 1909. – P. 38 // Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 47. – P. 402–404, 701–702.

58. Manuscripts Department of the Taras Shevchenko Institute of Literature. – Fund 3. – No. 814. – Sheets 1–3.

59. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 178 (letter dated 20.11.1901). Interestingly, Franko explained his belonging to the “family” of Hrushevskyi not by shared ideas or work for a common cause, but only because he was often obliged to visit Hrushevskyi’s house for business. Which again indicates the absence of cordiality in their relationship.

60. “I see Franko little, and he has become somewhat uninteresting these days, like Trush – perhaps, after all, I am putting them in this mood.” Diary entry dated 9.03.1904. (Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheet 40).

61. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 92 (letter dated 23.09.1897).

62. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1.– Case 622. – Sheet 81.

63. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 127–128 (letter dated 16.01.1899).

64. Ibid. – P. 139.

65. Notes of the Shevchenko Scientific Society. – 1900. – Book 6. – P. 24–41.

66. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 166–167.

67. “As I say, regarding me, the Visnyk – it is the main thread that binds me to the Society. If it ceases to exist, I will have to look for another bread, because scientific work gave me only about 20 gulden per month until now.” (Letter to B. Hrinchenko dated 20.11.1901) (Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 186).

68. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 181–182.

69. Ibid. – P. 178.

70. Ibid. – P. 178–179.

71. Ibid. – P. 174–176, 177 (letters to Ye. Trehubov and M. Hrushevskyi dated 14.11 and 16.11.1901).

72. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheet 40 rev.

73. Ibid. – Sheet 4 rev.

74. Ibid. – Sheets 42 rev.–43 rev.

75. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 5. – P. 237 (letter dated 22.02.1904).

76. Ibid. – P. 252 (letter to V. Yahich dated 11.09.1904); Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheet 51 rev. (by 10.12.1904 they had already read the proofs together).

77. Hruschevsky M. First Decennium of the Scientific Activity of the Shevchenko Society of Sciences in Lemberg // Archiv für Slavische Philologie. – Berlin. – Vol. 27. – P. 279–299.

78. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 272 (letter to his wife dated 28.08.1905).

79. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheet 49 rev. (entry dated 30.11.1904).

80. Ibid. – Sheet 52 (entry dated 12 and 14.12.1904).

81. Ibid. – Sheet 46.

82. Ibid. – Sheets 56–56 rev. (entry dated 1 and 2.01.1905).

83. Ibid. – Sheet 80 rev. (entry dated 23.05.1905), 81 rev. (entry dated 30.05.1905).

84. Ibid. – Sheet 82 (entry dated 2 and 3.06.1905).

85. Ibid. – Sheet 136 rev. (entry dated 30.11.1906).

86. Ibid. – Sheet 62 rev. (entry dated 29.01.1905).

87. Correspondence of M. Hrushevskyi… – Vol. 1. – P. 95–96; Ibid. – Vol. 3. – P. 304–305 (letter dated 27.10.1906).

88. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheets 80 rev., 82–82 rev., 88, 120, 120 rev., 131 rev.–132, 133 rev. (entries dated 28.05., 6.06., 31.07.1905; 1.07, 6.07, 16.08., 7.10., 10.10., 22.10.1906).

89. Ibid. – Sheet 146 rev. (entry dated 16.03.1907).

90. Ibid. – Sheets 80, 80 rev. “Franko visited – he now visits often, and his little rabbits even more often, they devoured the seedlings, even the faces” (entry dated 29.05.1910, during I. Franko’s illness. Ibid. – Sheets 342–342 rev.)

91. Ibid. – Sheets 65 rev., 68 rev. (entries dated 18.02. and 11.03.1905).

92. Ibid. – Sheet 120 rev.

93. Michael Gruschewski. The Little Russians // Die Russen über Russland. – Frankfurt am Main. – 1906. – P. 616–639; Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheet 84 (entry dated 18.06.1905).

94. Ibid. – Sheet 89 (entry dated 10.08.1905). Hrushevskyi M. Even before “The Miracle of St. Clement, Pope of Rome” // Notes of the Shevchenko Scientific Society. – 1905. – Vol. LXVI. – Book IV. – P. 1–3.

95. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheet 89.

96. Ibid. – Sheet 65 rev. (entry dated 19.02.1905).

97. Ibid. – Sheets 67–67 rev.

98. Ibid. – Sheet 88 rev.

99. Ibid. – Sheet 92 (entry dated 24–26 October 1905).

100. Ibid. – Sheet 106 (entry dated 19.02.1906).

101. Ibid. – Sheet 109 rev. (entry dated 17.03.1906).

102. Ibid. – Sheets 121 rev., 122 (entries dated 16, 18–19.07.1906).

103. Ibid. – Sheets 131–131 rev. (entry dated 4.10.1906).

104. Ibid. – Sheets 135–135 rev. (entry dated 22.11.1906).

105. Ibid. – Sheets 133–133 rev. (entry dated 21 and 22.10.1906).

106. Ibid. – Sheet 136 rev. (entry dated 30.11.1906).

107. Ibid. – Sheet 137 rev. (entry dated 10.12.1906).

108. Ibid. – Sheets 138–138 rev. (entry dated 11.12.1906).

109. Ibid. – Sheet 139 rev. (entry dated 16.12.1906).

110. Ibid. – Sheet 130 rev. (entry dated 28.09.1906).

111. Ibid. – Sheets 145–145 rev. (entry dated 6.03.1907).

112. Ibid. – Sheets 144, 144 rev.–145, 145–145 rev., 148 rev.

113. Ibid. – Sheets 147 rev.–148.

114. Ibid. – Sheet 150 rev. (entry dated 6.06.1907).

115. Ibid. – Sheet 162.

116. Ibid. – Sheets 55 rev.–56, 83 rev., 109 rev., 100, 121 rev., 124 rev., 139 rev., 141 rev.

117. Ibid. – Sheet 167 (entry dated 22.11.1907) “We were at the Monopoly – with Franko, Tomashivskyi, Mochulskyi, and Dzhidziora. They talked amicably.”

118. V. Doroshenko wrote that the cause of the cooling of relations between M. Hrushevskyi and V. Hnatiuk was that the latter fell ill with tuberculosis and could not, as before, devote himself to work in LNV and the Publishing Union. Hrushevskyi was forced to appoint M. Yevshan as the head of the Lviv office of the journal, which caused V. Hnatiuk to move to the camp opposing the Head of the Shevchenko Scientific Society (Doroshenko V. Literary-Scientific Herald // Yasinsky B. Literary-Scientific Herald. Content Index. Vols. 1–109 (1898–1932). – Kyiv; New York: Smoloskyp. – P. 533 (reprint from the Augsburg edition UVAN 1948 and LNV, Year 32, Book 1 (“Abroad”) (May 1948, P. 47–55))).

119. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheet 156 (entry dated 8.08.1907).

120. Interestingly, it was precisely the representatives of M. Hrushevskyi’s “young family” who later assessed the relations between I. Franko and the Head of the Shevchenko Scientific Society most objectively. At least this applies to M. Mochulskyi and V. Doroshenko (Doroshenko V. Literary-Scientific Herald… – P. 529–531, 533, 535–536). This caused indignation among the children of I. Franko, who exerted the greatest effort to create the myth of mutual enmity, because they remembered their father already ill, and therefore the complaints of Ivan Yakovych about M. Hrushevskyi were firmly etched in their memory. However, their feelings diverge from the truth. Taras Franko polemicized with M. Mochulskyi as follows: “Besides truthful… information, Mochulskyi presents clearly false, fabricated, non-existent things. For example, he goes against the truth by inventing what did not happen: ‘The poet felt free at the Hrushevskys, was cheerful and sociable, liked to visit them.’ In fact, nothing of the sort happened. On the contrary, Franko did not like Hrushevskyi and did not visit him…” (Franko T. About My Father. – Kyiv, 1956. – P. 124, 140). As the sources show, the reasoning is on the side of M. Mochulskyi. Perhaps I. Franko did not like M. Hrushevskyi as a person, but he respected him and visited him many times, without special invitations from the historian.

121. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 285.

122. Ibid. – P. 310. Franko I. Ukrainian Literature in 1906 // Rada. – 1907. – 11, 14, 16, 30 (January), 22 (February).

123. In a letter to Franko, immediately after the publication of the last submission of the article, M. Hrushevskyi wrote about S. Yefremov’s demand to remove his name from the list of closer collaborators of LNV. According to Hrushevskyi, the reason was his close association with Hrinchenko (Correspondence of M. Hrushevskyi… – Vol. 1. – P. 97).

124. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 319.

125. Correspondence of M. Hrushevskyi… – Vol. 1. – P. 97.

126. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 322 (letter to M. Hrushevskyi dated 13.05.1907).

127. Franko I. [Review] M. Hruschewskyj. Geschichte des ukrainischen (ruthenischen) Volkes, 1906 // LNV. – 1906. – Vol. 33. – P. 595; Ibid. [Review] M. Hrushevskyi. Ukrainian Identity in Russia, Its Requests and Needs. – St. Petersburg, 1906 // LNV. – 1906. – Vol. 36. – P. 175–177.

128. Franko I. The Ukrainian Tribune in Russia // Franko I. Selected Works… – P. 355–361.

129. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheets 163, 164, 166 rev. (entries dated 26.10., 31.10., 19.11.1907).

130. Ibid. – Sheet 156 (entry dated 8.08.1907).

131. Ibid. – Sheet 162 rev. (entry dated 18.10.1907).

132. Ibid. – Sheet 166 rev. (entry dated 21.11.1907).

133. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 336–340 (letter to Ye. Trehubov dated 30.11.1907).

134. Ibid. – P. 341–342 (letter dated 16–17.12.1907).

135. Franko I. Theory and Development of the History of Literature: [Introduction]; Excursus I: Fotiiev’s “Miriobiblion”; Excursus II: Cataloging Books and Who Wrote Them // Notes of the Shevchenko Scientific Society. – 1909. – Vol. LXXXIX. – Book III. – P. 5–45.

136. Doroshenko V. Outline of the History of Ukrainian-Ruthenian Literature until 1890. With the Author’s Portrait (Writings of Ivan Franko, I). – Lviv, 1910 // LNV. – 1910. – Vol. 51. – P. 180–185.

137. Doroshenko V. Literary-Scientific Herald… – P. 536.

138. Ibid.

139. Kvit S. Ivan Franko and Mykhailo Hrushevskyi… – P. 67.

140. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 344–345 (letter dated 31.12.1907).

141. Ibid. – P. 347.

142. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheet 167 (entry dated 25.11.1907).

143. Ibid. – Sheet 168 (entry dated 2–4.12.1907) “A proposal is being made to Franko from St. Petersburg regarding the ‘History of Literature’, and Tomashivskyi now took the position that this is more advantageous for Franko.”

144. Ibid. – Sheet 167.

145. Ibid. – Sheet 176 rev. (entry dated 15–16.01.1908).

146. Ibid. – Sheet 179 rev. (entry dated 11 and 13.02.1908).

147. Ibid. – Sheet 178 rev. (entry dated 7.02.1908) “Franko came and was very surprised, saying that he collected his salary as before and in this year.” Apparently, the conversation about the reduction of salary between Hrushevskyi and Franko had occurred earlier, and the latter agreed with the professor’s decision.

148. Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 50. – P. 370–371 (letter dated 2.03.1908).

149. Ibid. – Sheets 177 rev., 182 rev. (entries dated 28.01. and 8.03.1908).

150. Doroshenko V. Literary-Scientific Herald… – P. 535–536.

151. Hrushevskyi M. The Illness of Dr. I. Franko // LNV. – 1908. – Issue 7. – P. 405–406. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheet 185 rev. (entry dated 29.04.1908). Apparently, Hrushevskyi hesitated for a long time whether to publish it. The member of the Society’s board, Lukiyanovych, advised to “omit” this article (Ibid. – Sheet 189 rev.-190, entry dated 20.05.1908). Franko himself was dissatisfied after reading this article (Ibid. – Sheet 194 rev., entry dated 22.06.1908).

152. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheets 185 rev.–186 (entry dated 4.05.1908).

153. Ibid. – Sheets 190 rev., 191, 194 rev.

154. Ibid. – Sheets 216 rev.–217 (entry dated 12.10.1908).

155. Doroshenko V. Literary-Scientific Herald… – P. 537.

156. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheets 226 rev.–227 (entries dated 24 and 27.12.1908).

157. Ibid. – Sheet 229 rev. (entry dated 10.12.1908).

158. Ibid. – Sheet 254 (entry dated 8.03.1909).

159. Ibid. – Sheet 281 rev. (entry dated 1.07.1909).

160. Ibid. – Sheet 285 (entry dated 11.07.1909).

161. Ibid. – Case 651. – Sheets 25, 29 (letter from M. Mochulskyi to M. Hrushevskyi dated 1.08.1909).

162. Wielka utrata: Historical Drama from 1831–1832: With a Biography of A. Mickiewicz and Selected Poems Translated into Ukrainian. – Lviv: Published by I. Franko. – 1914.

163. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1.– Case 25. – Sheet 260.

164. Ibid. – Sheet 260 rev. (entry dated 3.04.1909).

165. Ibid. – Sheet 261.

166. Ibid. – Sheets 261, 262–262 rev. (entries dated 5 and 8.04.1909).

167. Ibid. – Sheet 292 (entry dated 16.08.1909).

168. Ibid. – Sheet 268 (entry dated 7.05.1909).

169. Ibid. – Sheets 228–228 rev. (entry dated 4.12.1908).

170. Ibid. – Sheets 323, 328 rev., 342–342 rev. (entries dated 27.01., 5.03., 29.05.1910).

171. Hrushevskyi M. The Apostle of Labor // Ukraine. – 1926. – Issue 6. – P. 14.

172. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheet 133 rev.

173. Ibid. – Sheet 216.

174. Ibid. – Sheet 266 rev. (entry dated 27–29.04.1909).

175. Ibid. – Sheet 279 (entry dated 19.06.1909).

176. Ibid. – Case 265. – Sheets 71–73 (letter from M. Hrushevskyi to I. Dzhidzhora dated 4(17).12.1913).

177. Correspondence of M. Hrushevskyi… – Vol. 3. – P. 315.

178. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1 – Case 25. – Sheets 228, 281 rev. (entries dated 3.12.1908, 1.07.1909). I. Dzhidzhora reported the first visit, invited by I. Franko, noting that he “obviously comes often, as everyone knows his manners well.”

179. Ibid. – Sheet 315 (entry dated 13.12.1909).

180. Ibid. – Sheet 316 rev.

181. Ibid. – Sheet 328 rev. (entry dated 5.03.1910). And it was printed by Hrushevskyi. Franko I. Maleagr; excerpt of the first song // LNV. – 1910. – Vol. 50. – P. 50–55.

182. Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv. – Fund 1235. – Inventory 1. – Case 25. – Sheet 339 (entry dated 7.05.1910).

183. Franko I. Contributions to the History of Ukraine-Rus // Franko I. Collected Works… – Vol. 47. – P. 417–548.

184. Ibid. – P. 419.

185. Ibid.

186. Ibid. – P. 431.

187. Ibid. – P. 432–433.

188. Ibid. – P. 434–436.

189. Ibid. – P. 453–454.

190. Ibid. – P. 455.

191. Doroshenko V. Ivan Franko and Mykhailo Hrushevskyi… – P. 17–18.

192. Vynar L. Historical Works of Ivan Franko… – P. 48–63.

193. Hrushevskyi M. To the Apostle of Labor (on the decade of Franko’s death) // Ukraine. – 1926. – Issue 6. – P. 3–20.

194. To list only a few of them: Vozniak. Life and Significance of Ivan Franko. – Lviv, 1913; Ibid. Franko’s Journal Plans in 1881–1886 // Ukraine. – 1927. – Issue 3. – P. 17–88; Ibid. Ivan Franko in the Era of Radicalism // Ukraine. – 1926. – Issue 6. – P. 115–163; Studynskyi. Ivan Franko and Comrades in the Socialist Process of 1878 // Ukraine. – 1926. – Issue 6. – P. 56–114.

I express my heartfelt gratitude to Andriana Kislingir for her kind English translation of my article. I. H., Kyiv, October 29, 2025.