Contextualization of D. Chyzhevsky’s Historical-Philosophical Concept: From Philosophy in Ukraine (1926) to Essays on the History of Philosophy in Ukraine (1931)

Chyzhevsky’s work Essays on the History of Philosophy in Ukraine has become a fundamental study of the history of Ukrainian philosophy since its publication in 1931. But even earlier, Chyzhevsky wrote the work Philosophy in Ukraine. An Attempt at Historiography (1926), its first part had a second edition (1929) and contained some additions and clarifications. Chyzhevsky’s reaction to the reviews of the first edition of his Philosophy in Ukraine included in the second edition of this work is interesting and worthy of attention. In it, he responds to the comments and objections made by the reviewers of the first edition of the work (by Y. Kolubovsky, V. Zaikyn, I. Mirchuk, S. Hessen). This reaction has a twofold nature. On the one hand, Chyzhevsky admits that some points in his work require correction, in particular, the assessment of the role of Protestantism in the development of Ukrainian philosophical thought, the need for a more detailed consideration of the worldview of such thinkers as Gogol, Kostomarov, Shevchenko. On the other hand, Chyzhevsky, clarifying his position, continues to defend his principles, according to which he includes certain authors in the “canon” of Ukrainian philosophy. At the same time, he still admits that some authors should be included in this “canon” (... Spir). Chyzhevsky also responds to the Marxist review of P. Hanin (P. Demchuk), but does not stop at her meaningful remarks. However, some of these remarks are not unfounded, as they relate to Chyzhevsky’s evaluative judgments expressed about Skovoroda and philosophy in Kharkiv after Schad. A more careful analysis and comparison of the two editions of Philosophy in Ukraine (1926, 1929) and Essays on the History of Philosophy in Ukraine in the cases of Skovoroda, Schad, and Jakob proves that Chyzhevsky changed his initial, sometimes harsh, evaluative judgments to neutral ones. There is no reason to definitely assert that such changes occurred under the direct influence of reviews. However, there are reasons to affirm that many innovations and reassessments in Essays correlate with the remarks formulated in the reviews. In contrast to Western European favorable reviews of Essays (S. Hessen, G. Frolovsky, V. Zaikyn, D. Doroshenko, N. Lossky), the reaction of Soviet philosophy turned out to be unscientific and ideologically engaged (Y. Bilyk, V. Yurynets).