Cossack roots of our independence: we think about the past for the future of the future

L. Doiar
{"title":"Cossack roots of our independence: we think about the past for the future of the future","authors":"L. Doiar","doi":"10.36273/2076-9555.2021.8(301).40-45","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The presented article raises the problem of Ukrainian statehood, which is always relevant and emphasized on the eve of the 30th anniversary, in the context of its initial — Cossack — segment. The article is devoted to the history of state formation, initiated and generated by the Zaporozhian (Sich) and Ukrainian urban (Hetmanate) Cossacks. The author's classification of the Cossack period of national history according to such features as chronology of liberation struggles, character of confrontation and struggle, attributive registration of statehood (in particular, institutionalization of branches of state power and their documentary fixation in legislative (constitutional) acts is noted in the work. The author captures the stages of Cossack statehood (Christian republic-protostate, monarchical hetman state, autonomous Hetmanate as part of tsarist Russia), arguing the obvious regression in its development. Avoiding the possible politicization of the scientific problem, the author deliberately chose retrocontent as the primary source for this study, namely, the works of the most authoritative, without exaggeration, legendary Ukrainian historians of the end of the XIX — first third of the last century, such as: M. Hrushevsky, M. Drahomanov, B. Grinchenko, G. Khotkevych, L. Tsehelsky, G. Kovalenko (Hetmanets), P. Klepatsky, V. Riznychenko and others. The latter cannot be suspected of \"treacherous\" sentiments, although they cite harsh critical maxims, presenting the past and its participants comprehensively and objectively, while not hiding their personal feelings. An interesting circumstance of their mutual view is the extremely negative attitude towards I. Mazepa, a figure glorified in modern Ukraine, who became the foundation of the education of Ukrainian society. The highlight of the study is the citation of the \"Constitution of Kostya Gordienko\", older than the legal document of P. Orlyk and quoted in the work of L. Tsegelsky \"Russia-Ukraine and Moscow-Russia\".","PeriodicalId":211054,"journal":{"name":"Вісник Книжкової палати","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Вісник Книжкової палати","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36273/2076-9555.2021.8(301).40-45","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The presented article raises the problem of Ukrainian statehood, which is always relevant and emphasized on the eve of the 30th anniversary, in the context of its initial — Cossack — segment. The article is devoted to the history of state formation, initiated and generated by the Zaporozhian (Sich) and Ukrainian urban (Hetmanate) Cossacks. The author's classification of the Cossack period of national history according to such features as chronology of liberation struggles, character of confrontation and struggle, attributive registration of statehood (in particular, institutionalization of branches of state power and their documentary fixation in legislative (constitutional) acts is noted in the work. The author captures the stages of Cossack statehood (Christian republic-protostate, monarchical hetman state, autonomous Hetmanate as part of tsarist Russia), arguing the obvious regression in its development. Avoiding the possible politicization of the scientific problem, the author deliberately chose retrocontent as the primary source for this study, namely, the works of the most authoritative, without exaggeration, legendary Ukrainian historians of the end of the XIX — first third of the last century, such as: M. Hrushevsky, M. Drahomanov, B. Grinchenko, G. Khotkevych, L. Tsehelsky, G. Kovalenko (Hetmanets), P. Klepatsky, V. Riznychenko and others. The latter cannot be suspected of "treacherous" sentiments, although they cite harsh critical maxims, presenting the past and its participants comprehensively and objectively, while not hiding their personal feelings. An interesting circumstance of their mutual view is the extremely negative attitude towards I. Mazepa, a figure glorified in modern Ukraine, who became the foundation of the education of Ukrainian society. The highlight of the study is the citation of the "Constitution of Kostya Gordienko", older than the legal document of P. Orlyk and quoted in the work of L. Tsegelsky "Russia-Ukraine and Moscow-Russia".
哥萨克人独立的根源:我们为未来思考过去
本文提出了乌克兰国家地位的问题,这个问题在30周年前夕总是相关的,并在其最初的哥萨克部分的背景下得到强调。这篇文章致力于国家形成的历史,由扎波罗热(siich)和乌克兰城市(Hetmanate)哥萨克人发起和产生。作者根据解放斗争的年代史、对抗和斗争的特征、国家地位的属性登记(特别是国家权力部门的制度化及其在立法(宪法)行为中的文献固定)等特征对哥萨克民族历史时期进行了分类。作者抓住了哥萨克国家的各个阶段(基督教共和国-原始国家,君主制酋长国家,作为沙皇俄罗斯一部分的自治酋长国家),论证了其发展过程中的明显倒退。为了避免科学问题可能的政治化,作者故意选择回溯内容作为本研究的主要来源,即最权威的作品,毫不夸张地说,十九世纪末-上世纪前三分之一的传奇乌克兰历史学家,如:M.赫鲁舍夫斯基,M.德拉哈马诺夫,B.格林琴科,G.霍特克维奇,L. Tsehelsky, G. Kovalenko (Hetmanets), P. Klepatsky, V. Riznychenko等。后者不能被怀疑有“背信弃义”的情绪,尽管他们引用了严厉的批评格言,全面客观地呈现了过去及其参与者,同时不隐藏他们的个人感受。在他们的共同观点中,一个有趣的情况是,他们对马泽帕(I. Mazepa)持极其消极的态度,马泽帕是现代乌克兰的荣耀人物,他成为乌克兰社会教育的基础。本研究的重点是引用了比P. Orlyk的法律文件更古老的“Kostya Gordienko宪法”,并在L. Tsegelsky的著作“俄罗斯-乌克兰和莫斯科-俄罗斯”中引用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信