Government ideas of ukrainian orthodox clergy in the period of the national-liberation revolution in the middle XVII ct. (1648-1657)
Keywords:
orthodox church, cossacks, ukrainian nation, Kyiv metropolis, Petro Mohyla, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Silvestr Kosiv
Abstract
The article deals with the views of Ukrainian orthodox intellectuals of late XVI – early XVII ct. on the gist of the state, political rules, the role of the governor, the relations between the church and government authority. By the mid of XVII ct. these ideas had been clearly determined and wanted political realization. It resulted in closer relations of the Cossack and Orthodox Authorities and the interaction of their political concepts. The impact of the church elite on the evolution of the Cossack’s idea of the Government in the period of the national-liberation revolution of 1648-1657 is under research. The Cossack’s and the Church’s common and distinctive ideas of an ideal government as well as the reasons of these distinctions and their impact on the course of the political events are analyzed. It is proved that the Cossack and the Orthodox Authorities had common views on the basic ideas of the political notion «Rus», of a political nation as an outclass ethnic-confessional community, who are voluntarily united to defend their faith and rights. It is supposed that these ideas were borrowed by Cossacks from the church, where they had been being developed since the end of XVI ct. At the same time, there was a strict distinction in the idea of the state governor and the relations between the state and the church authorities. In contrast to orthodox priests’ understanding of an ideal governor as «tsar-philosopher» (the idea that had existed in European philosophy since Platoon and had dominated since Petro Mohyla), Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s entourage evolved from a democratic idea of Cossack Hetman to autocratic idea of Hetman-Monarch. The priesthood and Cossacks had also differed in their vision of the relations between the church and the state authorities. The priesthood supported the supremacy of the church, while Cossacks stood up for the state government.Such a difference in their views resulted in great misunderstanding between hetman’s adherents and orthodox hierarchy, especially in the period of formation of the Union with Moscow State in 1654. This difference must have been caused by different political influence on the Cossack Authority of both Kyiv orthodox hierarchy (whose aim was to strengthen Ukrainian sovereignty) and orthodox patriarchs in the east (aimed to liberate themselves from Moslem Government). Later on both Cossack and church ideas evolved under the impact of objective circumstances and influenced mutually in the process of formation of the national government.References
1. Kostelnuk M. Politychny aspect diyalnosti Petra Mohyly (Political aspect of Petro Mohyla’s work). Suchasna ukrainska politytka. Politytky I Politology pro nei. K., 2011. vyp. 22. pp. 127 – 134.
2. Kryzhanivsky O. P. , Plokhiy S. M. Istoria tserkvy ta religiynoi dumky v Ukraini (The history of the church and religious studies). in 3-volumes. V. 3. K.; lybid’, 1994. 335p.
3. Mytsyk Yu. A. Kyivsky patriarkhat u proektah Petra Mohyly (Kyiv patriarchate in Petro Mohyla’s projects). Ukrainsky istorychny zhurnal. 2007. № 1. pp. 61 – 69.
4. Plokhiy S. Nalyvaykova vira. Kosatstvo ta religia v raniomoderniy Ukraini: monografija (The faith of Nalyvayko. Cossacks and religion in Ukraine of early modernism: monograph). K.: Krytyka, 2006. 495 p.
5. Prytsak L. Osnovni mizhnarodni dogovory Bohdana Khmelnytskogo 1648-1657 rr.: monografija (The principle international pacts of Bohdan Khmelnitskij: monograph). Kharkiv: Akta, 2003. 499 p.
6. Smoliy V., Stepankov V. Bohdan Khmelnytsky: Sotsialno-politychny portret: monogrfija (Bohdan Khmelnytsky: Social-political portrait: monograph). K.: Lybid’, 1995. 624 p.
7. Khavrishin M. Bohdan Khmelnytsky ta Ukrajinska pravoslavna tserkva (1648 – 1657 rr.) (Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Ukrainian orthodox church (1648 – 1657)). Ukrainsky istorychny zhurnal. 1995. no 4. pp. 92 – 100: 1995. no 5. pp. 57 – 66.
8. Shalashna N. Uyavlenia pro derzhavu ta ii vidnosyny iz tserkvoju v ukrajinskomu pravoslaviji kozatskoji doby (Scenes about the state and its relations with the church in Ukrainian orthodoxy of Cossack period). Shid. 2014. no 3. pp. 68 – 77.
9. Shevchenko I. Ukraina mizh Zakhodom I Skhidom. Narysy z istorii kultury do pochatku XVIII stolittya (Ukraune between East and West. Essays on history of culture until the beginning of XVIII century). Lviv: Instytut istorii tserkvy Lvivskoyi Bogoslovskoyi akademii, 2001. 250 p.
10. Yakovenko N. Paralelny svit: Doslidzhenia z istorii uyavlen’ ta idey v Ukraini XVI – XVII st.: monogrfija (Parallel world: researches on history of phenomena and ideas in Ukraine XVI – XVII ct. monograph). K.: Krytyka, 2001. 416 p.
2. Kryzhanivsky O. P. , Plokhiy S. M. Istoria tserkvy ta religiynoi dumky v Ukraini (The history of the church and religious studies). in 3-volumes. V. 3. K.; lybid’, 1994. 335p.
3. Mytsyk Yu. A. Kyivsky patriarkhat u proektah Petra Mohyly (Kyiv patriarchate in Petro Mohyla’s projects). Ukrainsky istorychny zhurnal. 2007. № 1. pp. 61 – 69.
4. Plokhiy S. Nalyvaykova vira. Kosatstvo ta religia v raniomoderniy Ukraini: monografija (The faith of Nalyvayko. Cossacks and religion in Ukraine of early modernism: monograph). K.: Krytyka, 2006. 495 p.
5. Prytsak L. Osnovni mizhnarodni dogovory Bohdana Khmelnytskogo 1648-1657 rr.: monografija (The principle international pacts of Bohdan Khmelnitskij: monograph). Kharkiv: Akta, 2003. 499 p.
6. Smoliy V., Stepankov V. Bohdan Khmelnytsky: Sotsialno-politychny portret: monogrfija (Bohdan Khmelnytsky: Social-political portrait: monograph). K.: Lybid’, 1995. 624 p.
7. Khavrishin M. Bohdan Khmelnytsky ta Ukrajinska pravoslavna tserkva (1648 – 1657 rr.) (Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Ukrainian orthodox church (1648 – 1657)). Ukrainsky istorychny zhurnal. 1995. no 4. pp. 92 – 100: 1995. no 5. pp. 57 – 66.
8. Shalashna N. Uyavlenia pro derzhavu ta ii vidnosyny iz tserkvoju v ukrajinskomu pravoslaviji kozatskoji doby (Scenes about the state and its relations with the church in Ukrainian orthodoxy of Cossack period). Shid. 2014. no 3. pp. 68 – 77.
9. Shevchenko I. Ukraina mizh Zakhodom I Skhidom. Narysy z istorii kultury do pochatku XVIII stolittya (Ukraune between East and West. Essays on history of culture until the beginning of XVIII century). Lviv: Instytut istorii tserkvy Lvivskoyi Bogoslovskoyi akademii, 2001. 250 p.
10. Yakovenko N. Paralelny svit: Doslidzhenia z istorii uyavlen’ ta idey v Ukraini XVI – XVII st.: monogrfija (Parallel world: researches on history of phenomena and ideas in Ukraine XVI – XVII ct. monograph). K.: Krytyka, 2001. 416 p.
Published
2014-09-16
How to Cite
Shalashna, N. (2014). Government ideas of ukrainian orthodox clergy in the period of the national-liberation revolution in the middle XVII ct. (1648-1657). Grani, 17(11), 136-143. Retrieved from https://grani.org.ua/index.php/journal/article/view/757
Issue
Section
HISTORY
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
