Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Hetmanate
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The documents of political investigation of the Tsardom of Moscow / Russian Empire are valuable sources for the reconstruction of public consciousness of the inhabitants of the Hetmanate of the 18th century. They contain materials of the investigation into the so-called ‘words and deeds’, which concerned insults of majesty are mostly obscene remarks against monarchs. All these statements are extremely interesting in the context of everyday, informal, non-sacred perception of power, evidence of the awareness of ordinary residents of Ukrainian autonomy in political events, phenomena, private life of the court. In addition, they clearly show a kind of insinuation of power, its division into ‘yours’ – who the power of the emperor is, the metropolis, and ‘our’ – that the hetman and autonomous institutions are. This division clearly shows the awareness of the collective ‘we’, that is one of the markers of constructing one’s own identity.
EN
This article investigates the situation of widows and widowers in the early modern society of Hetmanate. The main source that was used are census books of Poltava, created in the period 1765−1766, during the time of so-called Rumyantsev description of Little Russia in Hetmanate (1765−1769). The article covers the main problems of widowed Poltava citizens in 1760s. Using the methods of historical demography and social anthropology, the proportion of widows and widowers in the total structure of population, topography of their settlement, age characteristics, social status, the structure of households, and their financial situation were studied. The study concludes that the proportion of widows and widowers in the marital status composition of the citizens in total was equal to the general European trend − thepercentage of widows was much higher than of widowers, widows more often than widowers lived in the central part of the city, most widows were women in the childbearing age, while widowers were usually old men. By the social affiliation, widows were usually citizens, while widowers − Cossacks. The largest micro group of Poltava widows consisted of the maids who lived in the yards of wealthy townspeople in the downtown area. The financial position of both groups was not the same. Among them, there were quite wealthy individuals, and relatively poor as well.
3
Content available remote

Baturyn – idea hetmańskiej stolicy

63%
EN
The capital city of a state is a place of considerable importance – it is the centre of politics, economy, culture and religion. This was also the case in the Ukraine where the first independent contemporary Ukrainian state was formed in the middle 17th century thanks to Bohdan Khmelnytsky, the Zaporizhian hetman. The extremely complex political situation was not conducive to the state-building process and in the following years the Ukrainian lands were peculiarly divided along the line marked by the Dnieper river into the socalled Right-bank Ukraine subordinate to the Polish Republic and the Left-bank Ukraine controlled by Russia. This division was accompanied by the emergence of two hetman seats of authority. At the turn of the 18th century the capitals of the Zaporizhian hetmans dependent on Russia were located in many places, inter alia in Subotiv, Chyhyryn, Baturyn and Hlukhiv. However, it was Baturyn – the city located at the Seym river which until the second half of the 17th century constituted an extremely important frontier in the defense system of the borderlands of the Polish Republic – was to play the most important role. All of this happened thanks to the activities of two hetmans. One was Ivan Mazepa who in his attempts to create an Ukrainian state independent from Russia at the beginning of the 18th century followed his great predecessor, Bohdan Khmelnytsky. The other was Kyrylo Rozumovsky who in the middle of that century attempted to save the last shards of autonomy granted to the Ukraine by the Russian rulers. During hetman Mazepa’s tenure Baturyn was not only the political centre of all Ukrainian lands, but it was also an important cultural and religious centre. Its vibrant development was interrupted in 1708 during the Great Northern War when in his attempt to achieve independence from Russia, Mazepa supported the Swedish king, Charles XII. At that time, czar Peter I sent strong military units to Baturyn which burned the city and murdered its inhabitants. After these events, the hetman capital was located in Hlukhiv until 1750. It was not until the decision made by the Elizaveta Petrovna, the Empress of Russia that the languishing city of Baturyn regained the status of a capital and was granted to the hetman Kyrylo Rozumovsky. Soon after this, thanks to his activities the city was rebuilt – new houses and manufacturing plants were constructed, and there were plans to open a university as well. Eventually, the plans to restore Baturyn to its former glory which it enjoyed during Mazepa’s times failed, and so did the attempts to preserve the autonomy of the Ukraine within the Russian empire.
EN
Panegyric works and their connection with the Kyiv monasteries in the context of the relations between the Hetmanate and the Moscow kingdom in the early 18th century. The eulogies which are dedicated to Prince Alexander Menshikov and originate from the Kyiv monastery environment – in particular, the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra and the Kyiv Brotherhood Monastery are discussed and compared in the article. The circumstances of the origin of these works, the peculiarities and motivation of the dedications, rhetorical figures and their significance in the respective historical and political context have also been analysed. Panegyrics were inscribed in the paradigm of Ukrainian-Russian relations in the early 18th century. A little-known work attributed to Theophanes Prokopovych is also published in the appendices.
EN
Bogdan Kistiakovski is known as the most renowned Ukrainian legal philosopher and social scientists. His works served as an inspiration for authors such as Georg Jellinek, Hans Kelsen, Max Weber or Robert M. Park. Unforunately, in Poland his works are almost completely unknown. Existing biographies of Kistiakovsky tend to leave out the last period of his life (years 1914–1920). In fact this is the most fascinating time of his activity. During World War I he published works in which he formulated the idea of the pluralistic theory of the law, edited legal journals for the elite of the Russian jurisprudence of that time. He was also actively working in the structures of the Ukrainian states: Ukrainian People’s Republic and the Ukrainian State. He became a judge (for the first time in his life) and took part in the works of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. The goal of the paper was to indicate the role Kistiakovsky played in the years 1914–1920 in Ukraine, as well as show his scientific life, with a special focus on his master’s degree dissertation. In the article the thesis that Kistiakovsky had a negativeapproach towards the Pavlo Skoropadsky’s Ukrainian state and had bad relations with his brother – Ihor, is also verified. It is also proven that Kistiakovsky was indeed very consequent in his views on the national and political questions, despite the political circumstances changing. In the paper Kistiakovsky’s scientific activity is shown. It has also been verified what was the topic of his last, unpublished papers. In the further parts, his activity as an expert in the commission for creating a Citizenship Law in Ukraine, his works in the committees for the organization of the Universities in Ukraine, as well as in the commission for the purpose of creation of the Electoral Law are described. Kistiakovsky’s work in the Ukrainian Academy of Science is also shown. The last months of his life, i.e. his activity in Katerinodar in the structures of the Kuban’ People’s Republic is also mentioned. In the summary the conclusions are formulated and the suggested further fields of research proposed.
UR
Богдан Кістяківський один із найвидатніших українських філософів та соціологів. Його праці були добре знані, зокрема Ґеорґові Єлінку, Гансові Келсену, Максові Веберу, Робертові М. Парку. Та незважаючи на це, життя і діяльність Богдана Кістяківського в Польщі є темою абсолютно невідомою. Прославився він передусім створенням власної оригінальної методологічної концепції, відомої як плюралістична методологія права, а також своїми поглядами на російську правову культуру і діяльністю на благо захисту прав людини в Росії. Біографія Богдана Кістяківського за період між 1867–1914 роками на цей момент є досить детально представлена в працях Сюзан Нойман чи Лариси Депенчук. Та, на жаль, рівень досліджень останнього періоду життя вченого, тобто відрізок між 1914–1920 роками залишається донині поза увагою вивчення і є дуже незначним. А цей період, як можна припускати, є водночас найцікавішим фрагментом його біографії. У цей час Б. Кістяківський публікував свої найважливіші праціформулював свою методологію права, редагував чисельні юридичні журнали, в яких друкувалася еліта юристів російської держави. Що важливо, в цей період він активно брав участь у структурах новопроголошеної незалежної України – Української Народної Республіки та Української Держави. Вперше стикнувся на практиці з діяльністю юриста, ставши суддею Державного Сенату, а пізніше – Верховного Суду. Активно співпрацював також із Українською академією наук. Метою статті було визначення ролі, яку відіграв Б. Кістяківський у період між 1914–1920 роками в контексті народження української державності, зображення перебігу його наукової творчості й особливо з’ясування матеріалу, якому мало бути присвячене його останнє, втрачене та неопубліковане дослідження. В статті поставлено також мету оцінки тези про негативне ставлення Б. Кістяківського до гетьманату Павла Скоропатського, а також щодо його поганих стосунків із братом Ігорем. До цього ж, оцінено тезу, що Богдан Кістяківський залишався дуже послідовним у своїх поглядах щодо національних та політичних питань, незважаючи на змінність обставин. У статті використано доступні архівні матеріали із Центрального державного архіву вищих органів виконавчої влади у Києві та доступні матеріали, що були опубліковані в збірках документів, – це все дає можливість зобразити багато суттєвих питань, пов’язаних із життям Богдана Кістяківського в період між 1914–1920 роками. Передусім у статті представлено наукову діяльність ученого в період Першої світової війни, із особливим акцентом на його захисті магістерської дисертації. З’ясовано також, якими питаннями займався Б. Кістяківський наприкінці життя і якій тематиці були присвячені його останні, досі неопубліковані, праці та незавершені проекти. Подано огляд діяльності Б. Кістяківського в комісіях над створенням закону про громадянство Української Народної Республіки, пізніше – Української Держави, в комісії у справах вищої освіти та в комісії у справах закону про вибори до Сенату Української Держави. Представлено також його діяльність в Українській академії наук, і в цьому контексті зображено його намагання докласти зусилля, щоб зберегти функціонування цієї установи в часі окупації Києва Добровольчою армією. У статті згадано також відрізок останніх років біографії Б. Кістяківського – роки діяльності в Катеринодарі, де він співпрацював із урядом Кубанської Народної Республіки. На завершення подано висновки та запропоновано ймовірні напрями наступних досліджень на предмет біографії Богдана Кістяківського.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.