18世纪乌克兰史学散文——19世纪上半叶对米哈伊洛·马克西莫维奇的评价

Yaroslav Myshanych
{"title":"18世纪乌克兰史学散文——19世纪上半叶对米哈伊洛·马克西莫维奇的评价","authors":"Yaroslav Myshanych","doi":"10.33608/0236-1477.2019.10.52-58","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The essay reviews the studies of Mykhailo Maksymovych that deal with the three works of the 18th–19th-century Ukrainian historiography. According to M. Maksymovych, one may classify the syncretic historiographic works within three main types. These are Cossack chronicles of the late 17th – early 18th centuries, journalistic pamphlets of the late 18th century, and historical novels of the mid-19th century. The scholar used different approaches analyzing the works from the mentioned groups (chronicle by Hryhorii Hrabianka, “History of Ruthenians”, and “The Commoners’ Council” by Panteleimon Kulish). The scholarly historiography of the time was not still shaped enough and the works from the field could have features of fiction and research studies simultaneously. The authors, who didn’t understand history as a separate research field, were free of modern limits and could easily use both fictional and research techniques within the same work. The strict critical attitude of the scholar towards the chronicle by Hryhorii Hrabianka changed into tolerant in the case of “History of Ruthenians” and moderate critical in the analysis of “The Commoners’ Council”. M. Maksymovych tried to be objective in covering historical processes and worked hard to develop a scholarly approach in the evaluation of Ukrainian historiographical prose. Maksymovych took into account the specificity of every single work and, based on the ideas of his predecessors and contemporaries, rather accurately defined the proper frames of the scholarly historiography. At the same time, the scholar didn’t deny the value of fictional works based on historical events.","PeriodicalId":370928,"journal":{"name":"Слово і Час","volume":"149 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ukrainian Historiographic Prose of the 18th – the First Half of the 19th century in Assessment of Mykhailo Maksymovych\",\"authors\":\"Yaroslav Myshanych\",\"doi\":\"10.33608/0236-1477.2019.10.52-58\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The essay reviews the studies of Mykhailo Maksymovych that deal with the three works of the 18th–19th-century Ukrainian historiography. According to M. Maksymovych, one may classify the syncretic historiographic works within three main types. These are Cossack chronicles of the late 17th – early 18th centuries, journalistic pamphlets of the late 18th century, and historical novels of the mid-19th century. The scholar used different approaches analyzing the works from the mentioned groups (chronicle by Hryhorii Hrabianka, “History of Ruthenians”, and “The Commoners’ Council” by Panteleimon Kulish). The scholarly historiography of the time was not still shaped enough and the works from the field could have features of fiction and research studies simultaneously. The authors, who didn’t understand history as a separate research field, were free of modern limits and could easily use both fictional and research techniques within the same work. The strict critical attitude of the scholar towards the chronicle by Hryhorii Hrabianka changed into tolerant in the case of “History of Ruthenians” and moderate critical in the analysis of “The Commoners’ Council”. M. Maksymovych tried to be objective in covering historical processes and worked hard to develop a scholarly approach in the evaluation of Ukrainian historiographical prose. Maksymovych took into account the specificity of every single work and, based on the ideas of his predecessors and contemporaries, rather accurately defined the proper frames of the scholarly historiography. At the same time, the scholar didn’t deny the value of fictional works based on historical events.\",\"PeriodicalId\":370928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Слово і Час\",\"volume\":\"149 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Слово і Час\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33608/0236-1477.2019.10.52-58\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Слово і Час","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33608/0236-1477.2019.10.52-58","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文回顾了米哈伊洛·马克西莫维奇对18 - 19世纪乌克兰史学的三部著作的研究。根据马克西莫维奇的说法,人们可以将综合史学著作分为三种主要类型。这些是17世纪末至18世纪初的哥萨克编年史,18世纪末的新闻小册子,以及19世纪中期的历史小说。这位学者使用了不同的方法来分析上述群体的作品(Hryhorii Hrabianka的编年史,“鲁塞尼亚人的历史”和paneleimon Kulish的“平民委员会”)。当时的学术性史学尚未形成,史学领域的作品可能同时具有虚构和研究的特征。这些作者不把历史当作一个独立的研究领域,他们不受现代限制,可以在同一部作品中轻松地使用虚构和研究技术。学者对Hryhorii Hrabianka编年史的严格批判态度在《鲁塞尼亚人史》的分析中变为宽容,在《平民议会》的分析中变为温和批判。马克西莫维奇试图客观地报道历史进程,并努力开发一种学术方法来评估乌克兰的史学散文。马克西莫维奇考虑到每一部作品的特殊性,并以他的前辈和同时代人的观点为基础,相当准确地定义了学术史学的适当框架。同时,学者也不否认历史事件虚构作品的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ukrainian Historiographic Prose of the 18th – the First Half of the 19th century in Assessment of Mykhailo Maksymovych
The essay reviews the studies of Mykhailo Maksymovych that deal with the three works of the 18th–19th-century Ukrainian historiography. According to M. Maksymovych, one may classify the syncretic historiographic works within three main types. These are Cossack chronicles of the late 17th – early 18th centuries, journalistic pamphlets of the late 18th century, and historical novels of the mid-19th century. The scholar used different approaches analyzing the works from the mentioned groups (chronicle by Hryhorii Hrabianka, “History of Ruthenians”, and “The Commoners’ Council” by Panteleimon Kulish). The scholarly historiography of the time was not still shaped enough and the works from the field could have features of fiction and research studies simultaneously. The authors, who didn’t understand history as a separate research field, were free of modern limits and could easily use both fictional and research techniques within the same work. The strict critical attitude of the scholar towards the chronicle by Hryhorii Hrabianka changed into tolerant in the case of “History of Ruthenians” and moderate critical in the analysis of “The Commoners’ Council”. M. Maksymovych tried to be objective in covering historical processes and worked hard to develop a scholarly approach in the evaluation of Ukrainian historiographical prose. Maksymovych took into account the specificity of every single work and, based on the ideas of his predecessors and contemporaries, rather accurately defined the proper frames of the scholarly historiography. At the same time, the scholar didn’t deny the value of fictional works based on historical events.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
OLD UKRAINIAN MYTHOLOGY IN OLEH OLZHYCH’S LYRICS DUBIA TEXTS IN THE ACADEMIC EDITION OF TARAS SHEVCHENKO’S WORKS: THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORSHIP ROMA AS A MATRIX OF THE ‘OTHER’IN THE PROJECTION OF ORIENTALISM, RACE, AND NATION IN THE WORKS BY OLHA KOBYLIANSKA THE MYTHOLOGICAL SPACE OF GOOD AND EVIL IN “THE YELLOW PRINCE” BY VASYL BARKA JENS PETER JAKOBSEN'S NOVELLA “MOGENS” TRANSLATED BY OLHA KOBYLIANSKA: TEXT AND CONTEXTS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1