MYKHAILO HRUSHEVSKYI ON PRECONDITIONS, REASONS AND DRIVING FORCES OF “KHMELNYCHCHYNA”

Abstract

In the study of the early modern history of Ukraine it is primarily analyzed the achievements of the authors of positivistic direction, which coincided chronologically with the development of national science. However, with the introduction of new methods of historical search, characteristics of works of the fi rst phase of scientific studies often turn into criticism. It is quite natural that along with development of scientific knowledge the evaluation of various events and phenomena is transformed, submitted in the form according to the level of methodological tools. However, the application of innovations does not always lead to new approaches towards of understanding the past. A striking example is the analysis of preconditions, reasons and driving forces behind the rebellion in 1648, highlighted in the work of Mikhailo Hrushevskiy “Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy (History of Ukraine-Rus)”, volume 8. The scientist considers the growing role of the nobility, who managed to block the initiatives of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth king Vladislav IV, implementation of “Ordination of Zaporozhskyi Army” in 1638, colonization movement of Ukrainian population to the Left Bank and confessional
factors as main prerequisites. The reasons of the nationwide uprising in Ukraine in 1648, which M.
Hrushevskyi called “Khmelnychchyna”, he fi nds out on the basis such sources as “Eyewitness Chronicle (Litopys Samovydtsia)”, the works by Hryhoriy Hrabianka and Samiylo Velychko, on the opposite camp — statements of Polish nobleman Jan Kushevych, writers Vespasian Kohovskyi, Samuil Grondsky and Nathan Hannover. The main reasons are defined as social ethnic and religious issues. The scientist drew attention to the formation of a broad opposition of noble-magnate regime in Ukraine. Besides Cossacks, it included peasants, tradesmen, petty nobles, Orthodox clergy. Detailed analysis made by M.Hrushevskyi regarding preconditions, reasons and driving forces of “Khmelnychchyna” gives the ground to define its purpose and character, which contravene with existing historiographical definitions: “civil war”, “peasant war”, “Cossack war”, “Cossack revolution”, “national revolution” etc. It seems more appropriate to use the term “liberation war” as it covers all the aspects of ethnos struggle against social and national oppression.