Suchergebnisse

Although the study of Ukrainian historiography is rather new, it can boast of three distinguished names: Dmytro Doroshenko, Oleksander Ohloblyn, and M. I. Marchenko. To Doroshenko goes credit for the first work on Ukrainian historical writing ever published. His study, the only comprehensive survey, covers the period from the eleventh century to 1920. Doroshenko's book was supplemented and updated to 1956 by another Ukrainian historian, Ohloblyn

The late Mykola Chubatyi, a leading Ukrainian historian who resided in this country since 1939, recalled in one of his numerous writings (Ukrains'ka istorychna nauka i ii rozvytok ta dosiahnennia, Philadelphia, 1971) an event involving then Secretary of State Dean Rusk. Asked by one of his associates why he never mentions Ukraine, Rusk answered: "Ukraine is not a statenation and there never existed a Ukrainian state." Reminded by an insisting friend that this is not the case, because Ukrainians have had their statehood in the Middle Ages and again during the seventeenth century and the Ukrainian SSR is after all a member of the United Nations, Rusk instantly and professorially fired back that Russia always had some problems in the South.

The article offers a historiographical consideration of the description of the Khotyn battle 1621with an emphasis on the historical value of M. Kostin's "Chronicle of the Land of Moldova" in the coverage of theevent. The relevance of the study is dictated by the 400th anniversary of the battle. The purpose of the study is to clarify the historical significance of thechronicle in revealing the theme of the Battle of Khotyn in 1621. Methodology describes the work of M. Kostin, its source base, comparison with other historical sources, review of its use. Conclusions. "Chronicle of the Land of Moldova" by Myron Kostin, being the only source for studying the history of Moldova in the early and mid seventeenth century. at the same time it is a true description of the events of the Khotyn War (1620–1621). Although the chronicler is not a contemporary of the events, his account of the Battle of Khotyn is based on serious Polish sources of the relevant era, oral information from contemporaries of the fighting, the traditions of the princely family of Movileshty, and so on. The work is positively characterized by a deep and detailed description of events, impartiality, clear analysis of military operations of a participant in many battles, education of the author and his broad outlook, which allowed him to understand the causal links of actions, actions of the parties, unconditional literary talent M. Kostin. His disregard for the events of the Khotyn War of 1621 by a number of Ukrainian historians shows a reluctance to consider the event comprehensively, using all sources. Moreover, we see a focus on showing only one fragment of this historical event, the participation of the Ukrainian side in it. The language barrier to the use of the Chronicle is no more a problem than a political motive.

The article analyses the historiographic researches of the contemporary Ukrainian scholars devoted to origin of the Ukrainian people. The works of both famous and young scientists are analyzed. The author is convinced that the historiography of origin of the Ukrainian ethnos requires to be comprehensively analyzed.

On the basis of archival materials, first of all documents of the Sectoral State Archive of the Security Service of Ukraine and the Central State Archive of Public Associations of Ukraine, the author analyzed the reaction of the Ukrainian society to events of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. The article emphasizes the intensification of anti-Soviet sentiments among different groups of the Ukrainian population, expressing solidarity with the Hungarian rebels. The author focuses on the dissemination of protest actions in Transcarpathia, as well as among Hungarian students in Kyiv, Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovs'k.

The article analyses a number of stereotypical perceptions concerning Poland and the Poles, as presented in Ukrainian historiography, in particular: the idea of the Commonwealth as an enemy, the bearer of hostile Western values and Catholicism, the implementer of expansion into Ukrainian lands, the oppressor of the Ukrainian people, the factor of forced assimilationand Catholicization, the state that sought to «to sever ties between the Ukrainian people and the fraternal Russian people», a bad neighbor who constantly wants to enslave the Ukrainian people or seize their «ethnic lands»; the stereotype of the Commonwealth as an aggressive, despotic state of the imperial type, where there was cruel social oppression of peasants by Polish or Polonized feudal lords, where religious intolerance prevailed, especially against the Orthodox, and persecution was carried out against them; The state, which aimed to destroy Ukrainian statehood, seized Ukraine and turned it into its colony. The author raises the issue of forming the stereotype of «Polish-nobleman», «Polish-Catholic» and the myth that Catholicization was an instrument of Polonization, Poland and Ukraine – fundamentally separate, nothing but hostility, unrelated political, social and cultural organisms» etc.The article emphasizes that the existence of a number of myths and stereotypes in Ukrainian historiography about the neighboring state and its representatives hinder the mending of dialogue and developing Ukrainian-Polish relations. Addressing the problem will help not only to clarify the basic stereotypical ideas in Ukraine about the neighbour nation, but also to find out the cause of their emergence and development, which in turn will help to produce mechanisms for their elimination. When writing the work the author used general scientific empirical (description) and theoretical (analysis, synthesis, generalization, induction, explanation) research methods. The author concludes that the main reasons for the emergence of myths and stereotypes are the romantic idea of uniqueness and cultural self-sufficiency of a particular nation, the Ukrainian-Polish confrontation of the XVII century, the process of constructing the image of the Ukrainian nation, its enemies and rivals, political situation, etc. An important component of overcoming historical myths and stereotypes is the retrospective search for alternative ways of developing Ukrainian-Polish relations, awareness of the conclusion of a "strategic partnership" between Ukraine and Poland. The existence of myths and stereotypes about the past compels historians to deeply analyse and rethink the Ukrainian-Polish heritage ; У статті проаналізовано ряд стереотипних уявлень про Польщу та поляків, представлених в українській історіографії, зокрема: уявлення про Річ Посполиту як про ворога, носія ворожих західних цінностей і католицтва, реалізатора експансії на українські землі, гнобителя українського народу, чинника примусового ополячення й окатоличення, держави, що прагнула «розірвати зв'язки українського народу з братнім російським народом», недоброго сусіда, що постійно хоче поневолити український народабо захопити його «етнічні землі»; стереотип Речі Посполитої як агресивної, деспотичної держави імперського типу, де існував жорстокий соціальний гніт селян з боку польських чи полонізованих феодалів, де панувала релігійна нетерпимість, передусім по відношенню до православних, та здійснювалися проти них переслідування; держави, що мала мету знищити українську державність, загарбала Україну й перетворила її на свою колонію. Авторка порушує проблему формування стереотипу «поляк-шляхтич», «поляк-католик» й міфу про те, що окатоличення було знаряддям полонізації, «Польща та Україна – засадничо окремі, нічим, окрім ворожості, не пов'язані політичні, соціальні та культурні організми» тощо. У статті наголошується, що існування низки міфів і стереотипів в українській історіографії щодо сусідньої держави та її представників заважає налагодженню діалогу та розвитку українсько-польських відносин. Вирішення проблеми допоможе не тільки прояснити основні стереотипні уявлення в Україні щодо сусідньої нації, а й з'ясувати причину їх виникнення та розвитку, що, у свою чергу, сприятиме виробленню механізму їх усунення.При написанні роботи авторка використовувала загальнонаукові емпіричні (опис) та теоретичні (аналіз, синтез, узагальнення, індукція, пояснення) методи дослідження. Авторка робить висновок, що основними причинами появи міфів й стереотипів можна назвати романтичну ідею унікальності й культурної самодостатності конкретної нації, українсько-польське протистояння XVII ст., процес конструювання образу української нації, її ворогів та суперників, політичну ситуацію і т. д. Важливою складовою подолання історичних міфів і стереотипів є ретроспективний пошук альтернативних шляхів розвитку українсько-польських відносин, усвідомлення укладення стосунків «стратегічного партнерства» між Україною та Польщею. Існування міфів та стереотипів про минуле змушує істориків до здійснення глибокого аналізу та переосмислення українсько-польської спадщини.

"To write history well, one must live in a free society."— Voltaire to Frederick the GreatHistoriography, as a special historical discipline, is defined as a history of historical scholarship reflecting the development of historical thought. In the context of this definition the study of modern Ukrainian historiography is directly related to the analysis of present historiographical trends, historical concepts, the conditions under which the discipline developed, the role of Ukrainian historical research centers in Ukraine and the West, the nature and scope of historical serials, critical evaluations of contributions of individual historians, as well as the study of characteristics of various historical schools. In my opinion, the older definition of historiography as the history of historical writings is too narrow and sometimes results only in critical or enumerative historical bibliography covering writings of individual historians.

The purpose of the article is an objective historiographical characteristic of the figure of Metropolitan Arseniy Matsievich (1697–1772) through the prism of Ukrainian Church and Historical Science of XX–XXI centuries, outlining the range of problems and prospects for the development of contemporary Ukrainian historiography, dedicated to this prominent figure. The research methodology is based on usage of comparative, historical-genetic methods, the method of historical periodization etc. Scientific novelty. On the basis of the involved historiographic base, has been summarized historical estimates and visions of the figure of Metropolitan Arseniy by Ukrainian historians of the early XX–XXI centuries. Moreover, the problem milestones and perspective directions of the research of biography, dedicated to Arseniy Matsievich, in the modern Ukrainian historiography were defined. Conclusions. The emergence of Ukrainian ecclesiastical historiography as a field of historical science dates back to the time of the liberation contest of 1917–1921, when Ukraine was institutionalized as a state. The greatest contribution to the scientific studying of Arseniy Matsiyevich's activity weremade by Ukrainian diaspora scholars, among whom especially should be noted I. Vlasovsky, who actively developed studios of all-Ukrainian church history, and I. Ogienko, who can be considered as one of the first outstanding church biographers. In the historical writings of diaspora scholarsprevails the national-religious aspect of the study of the life of the Ukrainian Church in the synodal period. Contemporary Ukrainian historiography is characterized by usage of typological and structural methods of studying history of the Ukrainian and Russian Churches in the eighteenth century. Therefore, Arseniy Matsiyevich's figure in domestic historical works is analyzed rather superficially. Among the problematic, unexplored topics, which is the neededfor research, are the philosophy of Metropolitan Arseniy, his ecclesiastical and political views, which ...

This article argues that Soviet-style historical methodology persists in contemporary Ukrainian historiography at the level of both terminology (itself reflecting historians' understanding of causation) and the conceptual framework, in which the dominant grand narrative of the nation hinders the transition to modern microhistorical, regional-history, and cultural-history approaches. The reign of traditional national history has only recently been challenged from within the Ukrainian historical profession, and a serious debate about historical methodology has yet to unfold. Автор статьи доказывает, что методологические подходы советских времен до сих пор удерживают свои позиции в украинской историографии как на уровне терминологии (свидетельствуя об определенном понимании причинно-следственных связей историками), так и на уровне концептуальных моделей. Доминирующий национальный мастер-нарратив лишь препятствует переходу к современным подходам (таким как микроистория, региональная или культурная история). Внутри украинской исторической профессии лишь недавно был брошен вызов господству традиционной национальной истории, и серьезные дебаты, посвященные историческому методу, еще впереди.

This article reviews research on the Holodomor by historians of Ukraine since the late 1980s. It examines the dominant trends in historiography, the major findings, and the current state of the field. The field itself, it argues, has grown considerably and there now exists a critical body of scholarship on the subject. For the past two decades, this scholarship has largely been dominated by the debate about whether the Holodomor constitutes genocide. Much of the focus has been on illuminating the policies, methods, and intentions of the Soviet leadership and there have been notable advances in these areas of research. Social history on this topic, on the other hand, remains largely underdeveloped. Some historians of Ukraine have begun to study the Holodomor "from below" and to explore the larger social and cultural consequences of de-kulakization, collectivization, and the Terror-Famine. This approach is crucial, the author suggests, to understanding the exceptional nature of the era. In terms of patterns of migration, family structure, religious practices, social identity, status and ranking, and attitudes towards power, authority, and political participation, the Holodomor Era fundamentally changed the way Ukrainians lived. In this respect, it represents a turning point, as momentous as perhaps any in Ukrainian history.