Об’єктом розгляду є ідея національно-державного буття українства за доби
«Хмельниччини» в науковому доробку М. Грушевського, а предметом – вияв її в перетрактаціях гетьманських дипломатів із послами сусідніх держав, угодах Війська Запорозького з останніми впродовж 1650–1657 років. Наукова непроминальність доробку найвидатнішого вітчизняного історика засвідчується порівнянням його суджень і висновків із міркуваннями авторитетних сучасних дослідників означеної доби.
Объектом рассмотрения является идея национально-государственного бытия
украинства в эпоху «Хмельниччины» в научном наследии М. Грушевского, а предметом
– воплощение ее в перетрактациях гетманских дипломатов с послами соседних государств, соглашениях Войска Запорожского с последними в течении 1650–1657 годов.
Научная значимость и актуальность наследия выдающегося отечественного историка
обосновывается сравнением его суждений и выводов с размышлениями авторитетных
современных исследователей эпохи Богдана Хмельницкого.
The object of consideration is an idea of nationally-state existence of Ukrainians in a day
of “Khmelnychchyna» in М. Hrushevskyi’s scientific work, and the subject – its display in
hetman’s and his diplomats’ interpretation with the row of encroachments of the other states,
in agreements of Zaporizhian Host with the last-mentioned states during 1650-1657 years.
The analysis of scientist’s vision on the key problems of Ukrainian revolution of the
determinate period enables the row of conclusions. Firstly, М. Hrushevskyi convincingly affirms
that the «Muscovite vector» was one of the directions of B. Khmelnytskyi’s multivectorial
diplomacy that in the geopolitical situation of that time became determinative. Secondly, in
scientist’s understanding «The Treaty of Pereyaslav» (association of Ukraine and Muscovy)
included such constituents: the hetman’s and the cossack generals’ verbal arrangement
with the Muscovite ambassadors, clamped by the tsar’s word, retold by V. Buturlinthe «B.
Khmel’nitskyi’s articles», id est the requirements set in the form of petition to the tsar and
resolutions (decrees) of Oleksiy Mykhailovych on these petitions; monarch given charter to
Zaporizhian Host. Thirdly, a historian considers that Pereyaslav-muscovite agreement of
1654 foresaw relations which were the nearest to vassalage. Fourthly, a scientist insists on a
necessity to distinguish the real status of Zaporizhian Host in 1648-1657, with formal, legal
that was equipped by different agreements. Fifthly, according to the Cossack right (Polish-
Lithuanian Commonwealth tradition), agreement signed by a hetman or his authorized
persons certainly had to be approved by General Council (General Rada). As a hetman did
not promulgate the «articles» then legally an agreement was invalid. Sixthly, М. Hrushevskyi
considers 14 points of 1659, given by О. Trubetskoy during Yu. Khmelnytskyi’ selecting as
a hetman, new «formation», «counterfeit» which forced out this real Ukrainian-muscovite
agreement of 1654 from historical legal consciousness of Ukrainian citizenship. Seventhly,
scientist accentuates «that taking Ukraine under a high sovereign hand» did not level its
sovereignty in general, and in the area of diplomacy – in particular. The foreign policy of
Chygyryn was traditionally based on principles of polyvassalage. Eighthly, in the depiction of
outstanding figures of the national past М. Hrushevskyi always follows principle: a historian
is not an icon-painter, but captious and honest researcher. In his synthetic works, historical
secret services he argues against the idealization of epoch and B. Khmelnytskyi’s individuality,
pelts him the row of fatal errors, acknowledging that quite a bit of them – were objectively
predefined. Ninthly, hypercritically evaluating the hetman and his time, historian certainly
concludes: B. Khmelnytskyi remains not only the representative of determinate epoch in life
of Ukrainian people but also its main actor, a man really large by his capabilities and acts.
