Abstract
The article analyzes the views of the Russian researchers of the early modern Ukrainian history on the figure of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, who represent two historiographical directions – traditionalists and modernizers. It is proved that the first wing covers the lion’s share of the scientific segment and dominates, forming an appropriate image of the Russian historiography in the world. It seeks to preserve the old great-state basis, the role of which fulfills the concept of «all-Russian culture», «reunification of Ukraine with Russia», «united state», as well as the denial of independence of the Ukrainian historical process. Instead, the modernization wing, the main representative of which is the St. Petersburg’s researcher T. Taiirova-Yakovleva, is focused on revision of a great-state model of the early modern Ukrainian history. The modernizing image of the latter offers a volumetric vision of the Hetmanate’s history, which fully fits into the latest trends in the scientific development of the relevant issues, echoing in the basic approaches with the Ukrainian and Polish historiographies
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
