Varga Beáta: Önálló Ukrajna : orosz-szovjet és ukrán interpretációk a Hmelnyickij-felkelésről. In: Acta Universitatis Szegediensis : acta historica, (91). pp. 17-43. (1990)
Előnézet |
Cikk, tanulmány, mű
historica_091_017-043.pdf Letöltés (1MB) | Előnézet |
Absztrakt (kivonat)
The present study deals with a single, though very important aspect of the question of Ukrainian independence as treated in the Ukrainian and Russian-Soviet historiography. The evaluation of the Khmelnitsky uprising in different periods reflects as a sensitive indicator the Ukrainian, Russian and Soviet attitude towards the issue of Ukrainian nationality. The XVII—XVIII. century Ukrainian chronicles still reveal the lack of a uniform approach: on the one hand in these works the nostalgic feelings caused by the failure to attain independence can be discovered, on the other hand besides the demonstration of loyality to the tsar, the discontent with the Russian government and Ukrainian expectations are expressed. It can be seen as well, that in the historiography of the Ukrainian nobility from 1783, when the Ukrainian nobility was granted equal rights with the Russian ruling class, the approach of loyal subjects, committed to the tsarism and the "Ukrainian nobiliary nation" conception developed, and the contrary attitude of the preceding period fell into background. The rise of the Ukrainian national movement in 1830—40 drew the attention of Russian historians to the Ukrainian history. Contrary to the Ukrainian ideas urging a democratic and federation oriented reform of the Russian empire, from this time on publications legitimating the Great Russian interests and autocratic order started to appear, the authors of which treated the Ukrainians as a part of the Russian nation, as a subjugated population. However, besides these "official" Great Russian approach, one finds more refined views: the Russian historian V. O. Kliuchevsky does not seek the solution in terms of the empire, in his work a possibility of an independent Ukraine is envisaged. Among the Ukrainian studies that of M. Hrushevsky which is a further elaboration of the ideas of N. I. Kostomarov, is worth a special attention, it relates the Kievan Rus exclusively to the close connection with the Russian people, and provides historical arguments in favour of the Ukrainian bourgeois national historical approach. In the works published after 1917 further confrontation of these two approaches is evident. One can follow the methamorphosis of the Great Russian approach: now the Ukrainians are considered to constitute the organic part not of the Russian empire, but of the "soviet nation" and empire. Since the 1940s in the historical studies analysing the Ukrainian movement the authors stand for the "pan-Russian" approach in the following four important issues: the overestimation of the Russian aid, the issue of "reunification", making no mention of the Ukrainina strivings after autonomy and national independence, the retrospective comparison of the borders after 1939 with those existing in the XVII. century as justification of the "reannexation" of the Western Ukrainian and "White" Russian territories. On the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the unification of Russia and Ukraine the soviet leadership gave free scope to the studies of the Ukrainian movement, which have been suppressed in the 1940s. In the works published in 1954 the preliminary conceptual reconciliation is obvious: the Ukrainian uprising is presented as a peasant war, emphasis has been made on the favourite Stalin formultion of the "sharpening class strugle", in the figure of the "popular leader" Khmelnitsky Stalin himself can be recognized. Only in a few Ukrainian studies an approach differring from the "official" one can be found: in his work published in 1952 Liashenko cautiously points that after XVII. century the conditions could have been more favourable for the formation of an independent Ukrainian state; according to Osipov the tsar's government hampered the economic and cultural development of the Ukraine; in the book of V. A. Golobutsky published in 1957 again the "national" element in the evaluation of the Ukrainian movement can be discovered, which completely disappeared from the interpretations given in the Stalin period; in the History of Ukraine published in 1983 the authors connect the formation of the "Ukrainian feudal statehood" with the development of the Hetman administrative organization.
| Mű típusa: | Cikk, tanulmány, mű |
|---|---|
| Egyéb cím: | Independent Ukraine: Russian-Soviet and Ukrainian interpretations of the Khmelnitsky uprising |
| Befoglaló folyóirat/kiadvány címe: | Acta Universitatis Szegediensis : acta historica |
| Dátum: | 1990 |
| Kötet: | 91 |
| ISSN: | 0324-6965 |
| Oldalak: | pp. 17-43 |
| Nyelv: | magyar , angol |
| Kiadó: | University of Szeged, Magyar Medievisztikai Kutatócsoport |
| Kiadás helye: | Szeged |
| Befoglaló mű URL: | http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/37123/ |
| Kulcsszavak: | Hmelnickij Bohdan, Ukrajna története |
| Megjegyzések: | Bibliogr. a jegyzetekben: p. 39-42. ; összefoglalás angol nyelven |
| Szakterület: | 06. Bölcsészettudományok 06. Bölcsészettudományok > 06.01. Történettudomány és régészet |
| Feltöltés dátuma: | 2016. okt. 15. 07:57 |
| Utolsó módosítás: | 2026. feb. 03. 15:51 |
| URI: | http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/id/eprint/2767 |
 |
Tétel nézet |
