Introduction

ZENON E. KOHUT, VOLODYMYR SKLOKIN, AND FRANK E. SYSYN

The eighteenth century has long been a marginal and even neglected period in the dominant master narratives of Ukrainian history.

In spite of this bad luck, eighteenth-century studies have demonstrated a steady quantitative and qualitative growth over the last fifteen years that have turned the period into one of the most dynamic and innovative fields in Ukrainian his­tory writing. The eighteenth century became a testing ground for often method­ologically sophisticated studies in the new social and cultural histories, historical demography, women’s history and childhood studies, religious studies, and the history of education, as well as intellectual and new imperial histories. The present volume introduces the international academic public to the recent trends in the study of eighteenth-century Ukraine. Articles selected for publication reflect key new developments in this field during the last two decades.

The dissolution of the ussr and the restoration of Ukraine's independence in 1991 ushered in a new era for Ukrainian academic history writing. In Soviet Ukraine from the 1930s to 1980s ideological censorship in the field of historiog­raphy was in general strict, and it was especially harsh in the case of research into the second half of the seventeenth and eighteenth century - a period especially politically sensitive for the authorities taking into account such events as the Treaty of Pereiaslav of 1654, numerous Cossacks uprisings against the Russian Empire, including Hetman Ivan Mazepa's switch to Swedish protection in 1708­09, and the abolition of the Ukrainian Cossack autonomies during the reign of Catherine II.¹

Methodologically innovative studies in social and economic history conducted by Ukrainian historians in the first decade of the Soviet regime were halted in the 1930s by the mass purges in academia.² The historiographic output of the next fifty years was dominated by two interrelated currents.

Repressions, censorship, and political pressure on historians were not the only predicaments of this period. The forced isolation imposed on Ukrainian histo­riography in the 1930s turned out to be no less consequential. This included both a ban on participation in scholarly life beyond the Soviet Bloc as well as the re­striction of access to Western scholarly literature and some segments of Ukrainian pre-Soviet and emigre-historical writing. In this perspective, the development of Ukrainian historiography after 1991 can be considered primarily as an attempt to overcome the ramifications of this isolation by revisiting one's own previously forbidden tradition and reintegrating it into the global historiographic institu­tional framework and discussions.⁴

In the early 1990s, the attention of Ukrainian scholars who dealt with early modern history was mostly concentrated on the correction of the distorted in­terpretations of some key events of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries like the Khmel'nyts'kyi Uprising of 1648-57, the Pereiaslav Agreement, or Ivan Mazepa's switch to Swedish protection in 1708-09. This factual revisionism went hand in hand with the total rejection of the previously dominant Russocentric account of Ukrainian history that was substituted by a modified version of the national paradigm, i.e., the master narrative of Ukrainian history produced in the early twentieth century by Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi, and focused on Ukrainian state- and nation-building since the times of the medieval Kyivan Rus' polity.⁵

In line with the basic tenets of the national paradigm, in the 1990s Ukrainian historians invested great effort into the examination of the political and military history of the Ukrainian Cossack autonomies in the Russian Empire during the second half of the seventeenth through the eighteenth centuries.

Another important line of inquiry constituted studies of the new social elite - the Cossack starshyna - a social stratum which emerged as a result of the Khmel'nyts'kyi Uprising and combined elements of the Ruthenian szlachta of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Cossack officers of the Hetmanate and other Ukrainian autonomies. These studies included both biographical ac­counts of the Cossack hetmans and colonels, and more sociological surveys of the Cossack elite in general or of its separate segments. The initial impulse for this research current came from the studies of state-building. However, starting from the early 2000s the Cossack elite started to be considered in a more diverse context of historical demography and social and cultural histories, as well as the history of everyday life.⁸

During the 1990s Ukrainian historiography also became much more open to the world and began adopting the best practices of international historical writ­ing. As a result, eighteenth-century studies in Ukraine in the early 2000s under­went a noticeable turn to the new social and cultural histories. This shift not only opened up new research perspectives, but also allowed researchers to overcome some limitations inherent in the dominant accounts of the political history of the Ukrainian Cossacks produced in the 1990s. The main challenge here was the present day projection of some modern ideas and beliefs onto the pre-modern past. For instance, in the 1990s many historians treated the “Cossack State” as an axiom instead of something which needed to be proven and explained.⁹ They often took for granted the existence of a full-fledged Ukrainian nation already in the mid-seventeenth century and conceptualized the Khmel'nyts'kyi Uprising as

the “national revolution.”¹⁰ They also regarded the Russian Empire as an external and exclusively negative phenomenon which always sought to subjugate, exploit, and Russify the Ukrainian “Cossack State” and its population.¹¹

Innovations in the field of new cultural and intellectual histories have helped to challenge these assumptions and provide more adequate interpretations.

In the 2000s, collective identities became one of the most popular subjects for eighteenth-century scholars. Harvard-based historian Serhii Plokhy has made an especially important contribution to this field. In a number of his monographs, he not only traced the emergence and transformation of the Little Russian identity from the mid-seventeenth to the early nineteenth centuries, but also systematically examined the role of the Ukrainian clergy in the making of Russian imperial identity in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.¹⁴ Andrii Bovgyria explored the development of historical writing in the Hetmanate in relation to identity-building,¹⁵ whereas Volodymyr Kravchenko,¹⁶ Volodymyr Masliychuk,¹⁷ and Volodymyr Sklokin¹⁸ analyzed the transformation of collective identities in Sloboda Ukraine.

The studies of symbolic geography have become another important new cur­rent that emerged in the 2000s. Here the focus has been both on the representation of Cossack Ukraine on the European maps of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and on the emergence and transformation of such entities as “Ukraine”, “Little Russia”, “Sloboda Ukraine”, or “Southern Russia” on the mental maps of the educated classes of the Russian Empire, the Polish-Lithuanian Common­wealth, and Western Europe.²⁰ Most of these works emphasized a high level of fluidity and instability characteristic of the representation of Ukraine both on the real and mental maps during the long eighteenth century. Studies of travel writing, mostly concentrated on West European, Russian, or Austrian travelers to Ukraine, have gained increasing popularity and made an important contribu­tion to the exploration of the place of Ukraine on the mental maps of the educated European elites.²¹

The field of church history, which in the last ten to fifteen years has experi­enced an evident quantitative and qualitative growth, was reconceptualized as a history of religious culture and tradition. The main focus here was on the fate of the tradition of the medieval Kyiv Orthodox metropolitanate, which in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries found itself divided along political (be­tween the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Russian Empire) and ju­risdictional (between Orthodox and Uniate) borders. The concepts of confes- sionalization, Synodal governance, and social disciplinization were deployed to examine the transformation of the Christian churches and of religious culture during the long eighteenth century.²²

In the 2000s, the political history of eighteenth-century Ukraine has also been reinvigorated by the innovative impulses stemming from the new cultural his­tory.

The application of this approach to Ukraine allowed the reconsideration of the abovementioned one-sided and simplified image of the Russian Empire and Ukrainian-Russian relations during the long eighteenth century. First steps in this direction were taken already in the 1980s by Zenon Kohut, who examined the abolition of the Ukrainian Cossack autonomies in the Russian Empire pri­marily in the context of the modernizing policy of Catherine II inspired by the German theories of a well-ordered police state and Enlightenment ideals.²⁴ Stud­ies by Serhii Plokhy,²⁵ Viktor Horobets',²⁶ Volodymyr Kravchenko,²⁷ Volodymyr Masliychuk,²⁸ and Volodymyr Sklokin²⁹ which appeared already in the 2000s em­phasized that the Russian Empire was not something given, but was a polity in the making, and many Ukrainians made an important contribution to its imag­ining and functioning. Its policy towards the Ukrainian Cossack autonomies was rather ambivalent and determined by multiple factors and considerations. Finally, during the long eighteenth century the ideals of the nation and the empire were perfectly compatible for the majority of the Ukrainian elite. At the same time, es­pecially in the context of Hetman Mazepa's shift to Swedish protection in 1708­09 and the abolition of Cossack autonomies in the late eighteenth century, the issues of colonial violence and the orientalization of Cossack Ukraine and Ukrainians by the imperial center were raised and actively discussed.³⁰

Studies in the field of social history, formerly concentrating almost exclusively on the Ukrainian Cossacks and peasant strata, have begun to examine other social groups, and not only the larger estates like the clergy, townspeople, or ar­tisans, but also a number of smaller social and professional groups such as the kurinchyky, protektsianty, stril'tsi, reitar, zhovniry, and others.³¹ A social history perspective has also been employed to explore broader domains of eighteenth­century education,³² military reform and war,³³ law and justice,³⁴ or urban his­tory.³⁵ The upsurge of interest in Ukrainian historical demography focusing on the analysis of family and household has brought about the revision of a number of stereotypes of social and economic life in the Ukrainian Cossack autonomies of the Russian Empire.³⁶ We have also seen some important progress in the fields of women's history³⁷ and childhood studies.³⁸

Although most of these studies focus on ethnic Ukrainians/Little Russians/ Ruthenians, one can observe a growing interest in the history of other ethnic groups, especially of Jews and Poles, on the territory of Right-Bank Ukraine, which until the late eighteenth century belonged to the Polish-Lithuanian Com­monwealth,³⁹ and of Russians, Crimean Tatars, Greeks, Bulgarians, and Germans in the Ukrainian Cossack autonomies as well as in the Black Sea region of the Russian Empire.⁴⁰ Interethnic relations, which, with regard to the eighteenth century, have been examined primarily in the context of the Ukrainian-Russian and Ukrainian-Polish encounters, require a more inclusive approach and more systematic attention.⁴¹

This brief overview, which does not pretend to be exhaustive, demonstrates that since the early 1990s Ukrainian history writing has made important progress in overcoming the Soviet legacy of forced isolation and is integrating into the international historiographic institutional framework and discussions. The afore­mentioned preponderance of new social and cultural histories puts Ukrainian historiography in line with the recent trends in global eighteenth-century stud- ies.⁴² At the same time, Ukrainian historians are still slow in adopting a transna­tional perspective and putting their studies into the context of the global eigh­teenth century. The limited progress in research into the Ukrainian Enlighten­ment, a major eighteenth-century global intellectual movement, is very charac­teristic in this regard.⁴³ Taking this into account, internationalizing, “globalizing,” and digitalizing eighteenth-century history should become a priority for Ukrainian historians in the nearest future.

Nevertheless, the key challenge for the further development of Ukrainian eighteenth-century studies lies elsewhere. Scholars of eighteenth-century Ukraine still need to determine the appropriateness of the eighteenth century as an orga­nizing concept. Much depends on the scope and meaning we are ready to allocate to the Ukrainian eighteenth century. One possible option is to accept the currently prevailing idea of the “short” eighteenth century as a brief transition period be­tween the “long” seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. This interpretation, ad­vocated mostly by the students of the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, looks at the events of political history and point to Mazepa's shift to Swedish protection in 1708-09 and the abolition of the Ukrainian Cossack autonomies and partitions of Poland of the i77os-9os as chronological caesuras of the Ukrainian eighteenth century.⁴⁴ Another option would be to adopt the concept that is dominant among the students of Western Europe and the Russian Empire of the “long” eighteenth century, which stretches from the 1660s or 1680s to the 1830s.⁴⁵

Both of these options exist in the shadow of Ukrainian and Polish national historiographies that envisioned the chronological seventeenth century as di­vided by the epochal events of the 1648 uprising/revolution. In the Ukrainian case 1648 served as a foundation myth for Cossack Ukraine that had differing political, social, and cultural termini at the end of the chronological eighteenth century and even into the early nineteenth century. This periodization has only external similarities with the “long” eighteenth century and offers many quan­daries of establishing subperiods. Its basis assumes an early period of creative upswing that is followed by decline and terminations at various points in the eighteenth century. It leaves little space for conceptualizing a Ukrainian Enlight­enment. In contrast, Polish historiography has long placed 1648 as the marker of a period of decline, not only because of the revolt and Deluge, but also by a transformation of the Nobles' republic into the Commonwealth of magnates and oligarchs. This vision leads to the Dark Saxon Age and the Commonwealth as a puppet in international affairs. Only the Polish Enlightenment of the end of the eighteenth century, coterminous with the Partitions, is seen as ending this decline, and in many ways creating a period that is seen as the forerunner of the nineteenth century. For many Ukrainian scholars trained in the Polish tradition or studying the Ukrainian lands of the Commonwealth, this periodization in­fluences their conceptualization of the eighteenth century.

It is well known that periodization in history is always provisional. This is es­pecially true in cases of deep political fragmentation and complex political changes characteristic of eighteenth-century Ukrainian history, where it seems very un­likely to reach any common denominator concerning periodization even if we remain only on the level of political history. That is why, at least in some cases, it might be more productive to see history not as a simple series of chronological epochs that succeed one another but as “an accumulation of layers, some of which already completed at a point when others continue.”⁴⁶ From this perspective, without questioning the importance of political breaks of the early and late eigh­teenth century, one can still discern considerable continuity in the social structure, patterns of cultural life, and intellectual development of Ukrainian society of the Cossack autonomies of the Russian Empire from the 1680s (if not several decades earlier) to the 1830s.

It is not our ambition to settle the controversy about the limits and meaning of the Ukrainian eighteenth century in this introduction. Nevertheless, for the needs of the present volume we decided to adopt a more inclusive concept of the “long” eighteenth century, which in the Ukrainian case lasts from roughly the 1680s (the completion of the institutionalization of the Hetmanate and Sloboda Ukraine which coincided with the beginning of Mazepa's hetmanate) to the 1830s (the completion of political, social, and legal integration of the former Cossack autonomies into the Russian Empire as well as the gradual replacement of the Baroque and Enlightenment culture by Romanticism).

© © ©

The structure of this volume reflects the above-described directional turn toward new cultural and social histories of Ukraine, while concurrently highlighting im­portant recent developments in the field of Ukrainian political, military, and in­tellectual history as well as religious history and the history of education.

The volume's first section, “Cossack Autonomies and Their Demise,” opens up with three articles addressing the issue of the place of Ukraine in the symbolic geography of eighteenth-century Europe and the Russian Empire. Kyrylo Halush- ko explores the emergence of Ukraine as “the country of Cossacks” on maps of Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. He emphasizes that this was related to the Khmel'nyts'kyi Uprising of 1648-57 and ensuing state-building activities of the Cossacks. In turn, the abolition of the Ukrainian Cossack au­tonomies in the Russian Empire in the late eighteenth century led to a gradual disappearance of Ukraine from the maps. Volodymyr Kravchenko explores the transformation of the image of Ukraine in the symbolic geography of the Russian Empire by examining the usage of the terms Ukraine, Little Russia, and Russia in the works on Ukrainian history written between the 1760s and the 1820s. He argues that none of these geographic markers reigned supreme and emphasizes the in­stability and ambivalence characteristic of both the self-perception of Ukrainians and the place of Ukraine on the mental maps of the educated classes of the Rus­sian Empire during this period. Oleksii Tolochko focuses on the “discovery” of Kyiv by Russian travelers in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries that reflected a broader fashion for Little Russia among the elites in the empire's capitals. His analysis demonstrates that the dominant perception of Kyiv in the travelogues oscillated between the image of a “Russian Jerusalem,” i.e., a major center of Orthodox spirituality in the empire, and that of a “Slavic Pompeii” - the place of concentration of the precious archeological antiquities from the me­dieval Kyivan Rus' state.

The next four articles in the section deal with the abolition of the Cossack au­tonomies and its aftermath. Volodymyr Sklokin discusses the abolition of Slo- boda Ukraine's autonomy, which is examined in the context of the unification and centralization policy characteristic of the “enlightened absolutism” of Catherine II. He argues that in order to justify the abolition of the Cossack mil­itary-administrative system, the government used anti-elitist populist rhetoric that invoked the protection of the “people” from oppression and abuses of the Cossack starshyna and strived to present integrationist changes as a reform ini­tiative and compromise between the interests of the imperial center and key groups of the local population. Oksana Mykhed describes the epidemic of bubonic plague in Kyiv and Right-Bank Ukraine in the late 1760s and early 1770s. She demonstrates that the failure to contain the outbreak of the plague in 1770­71 became an important stimulus for the imperial government to redefine the administrative status of Kyiv and that of the Hetmanate and initiated their “higher subordination to the major imperial political, medical, and military in­stitutions.” Oleksandr Pankieiev examines the formation of the imperial bureau­cracy in the late eighteenth-century Steppe Ukraine which at that time was also known as New or Southern Russia. He shows how this complicated process was impacted by both the region's borderland status and the personality of Grigorii Potemkin, who served as New Russia's governor-general for most of Catherine Il's reign. The section concludes with a contribution by Vadym Adadurov that reconstructs collective identities in the Ukrainian provinces of the Russian Em­pire during the Russian campaign of Napoleon. Adadurov emphasizes that dur­ing this war both the Ukrainian elites and commoners remained unequivocally loyal to the Russian Empire. Such remarkable faithfulness can be partly explained by the fear that Napoleon’s victory could lead to the restoration of the Polish- Lithuanian Commonwealth and a renewal of Polish-Ukrainian confrontation.

The first three articles in the next section - “Society, Economy, and Demo­graphics” - explore various aspects of the functioning of the Cossack adminis­tration and army. Viktor Horobets' examines the practice of the free election of Cossack colonels in the Hetmanate in the late seventeenth through the early eigh­teenth century. He stresses that the execution of this traditional Cossack liberty was a part of a complicated power game among rank-and-file Cossacks, Cossack officers, the hetman, and the Russian authorities in Moscow and St Petersburg. In reality, it had already been significantly curtailed by the hetmans, who tried to increase their own power, before it was altogether abolished by Peter I after the Mazepa Uprising. Oleksii Sokyrko highlights Hetman Kyrylo Rozumovs'kyi’s military reforms that sought to increase the fighting efficiency of the Cossack army while simultaneously promoting local particularism and patriotism. Vadym Nazarenko focuses on the cavalry Reiter detachment that performed courier, ad­ministrative, police, and intelligence functions, and that was a part of the Russian garrison in Kyiv. Deploying a social history perspective, Nazarenko shows the in­consistent character of the imperial unification in the spheres of administration and army during the eighteenth century. The need to adapt to the local conditions of the Hetmanate forced the Russian imperial government to create and sustain a separate socio-professional corporation of Reitars that contradicted the very logic of unification.

The next three articles in this section address social, demographic, and economic changes in the Hetmanate and Sloboda Ukraine. Volodymyr Masliychuk describes the formation of family clans among Sloboda Ukraine’s Cossack officers. He argues that the making of the Cossack officers stratum in Sloboda Ukraine can be seen as an evolution of an extended family - “from a community headed by the ‘fa- ther’-colonel to a ramified governance structure.” The emergence of family clans, on the one hand, furthered the corporatization of the officer stratum and its claims to power in the region. However, on the other hand, it facilitated the curtailment and abolition of Sloboda Ukraine’s autonomy by the imperial government. Iurii Voloshyn, drawing on the methodology of historical demography, examines the population distribution of mid-eighteenth-century Poltava by age, sex, and mar­ital status. Ihor Serdiuk explores economic development and the demographic structure of the cities in the Hetmanate during the second half of the eighteenth century. Both contributions demonstrate the importance of a demographic per­spective for urban history. A focus on such aspects of the “demographic behavior”

of the population as sex-age composition, marital status, birth rate, death rate, and migrations allows us to capture the difference between cities and villages in the Hetmanate, which is less clear when viewed from the more traditional per­spectives of self-government, economic development, or administrative functions.

In the penultimate section - “Church, Culture, and Education” - Maksym lare- menko analyzes relations between the Kyiv Orthodox metropolitanate and the Synod during the eighteenth century. He argues that the efforts of the Church authorities in St Petersburg to discipline and unify the Orthodox Church in the Russian Empire were only partly successful. Due to the opposition of the Ukrainian Orthodox laity to a number of directives from St Petersburg and skillful political maneuvering by the Church hierarchs in Kyiv until the end of the eigh­teenth century, the Kyiv metropolitanate managed to preserve the distinctiveness of its religious culture. Ihor Skochylias discusses the introduction of the Church Union in Right-Bank Ukraine, which until the late eighteenth century remained a part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. He attempts to go beyond a nar­row confessional perspective in the analysis of the Uniate-Orthodox encounter in Right-Bank Ukraine. He focuses instead on the transformation of religious culture that often defied a Uniate/Orthodox dichotomy and was deeply rooted in the imagery of one's own sacred space.

Articles by Liudmyla Posokhova and Mykola Symchych deal with the devel­opments in the educational sphere. Posokhova explores the phenomenon of Or­thodox colleges in the Ukrainian autonomies of the Russian Empire in the context of the transfer and adaptation of the university idea on Ukrainian soil. She argues that Orthodox colleges were hybrid educational institutions that “represented the southeastern vector of the advance of the European medieval university” and which “served as a means of preparation for the reception of the classical university in the Russian Empire.” In turn, Symchych focuses on the changes in the teaching of philosophy at the mid-eighteenth-century Kyiv-Mohyla Academy related to the supplantation of the old Jesuit philosophy by Wolffianism. This particular case exemplifies a broader phenomenon - the growing influence of Protestant Germany and Fruhaufkldrung on institutional changes and intellectual life in eighteenth-century Ukraine and Russia.

In the final section - “Political and Historical Thought” - Zenon Kohut ex­amines the emergence of the Little Russian identity in the eighteenth-century Hetmanate in the broader context of early modern European state- and nation­building. He sees this identity as a proto-national one and emphasizes that it was based on loyalty to a Little Russian fatherland and the political nation of the Cos­sack estate. Frank Sysyn and Serhii Plokhy elaborate on Kohut's argument. Sysyn shows how the shift in the conceptualization of the fatherland from the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to Little Russia/Ukraine took place in the Cossack chronicles of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. In turn, Plokhy focuses on Ukrainian church intellectuals like Teofan Prokopovych who, after Hetman Mazepa's switch to Swedish protection, reconceptualized the patria as Rossia or an all-Russian fatherland. Natalia Iakovenko explores the ambivalent and contradictory nature of Cossack political culture in the second half of the seventeenth through the early eighteenth century, which on the surface was ex­pressed by the rhetoric of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's gentry democ­racy but hid inside archaic laws of military democracy and brotherhood. Gary Marker discusses the language of politics and the politics of language in the 1710 Bendery Constitution of Hetman Pylyp Orlyk - an interesting but not imple­mented attempt to fashion the political life of Cossack Ukraine along the lines of a Pacta Conventa, i.e., the formal agreement between the ruler and his political elites. Marker underscores that Orlyk's Constitution, originally written in Latin, employed basic categories of early modern legal and political thought that would be understandable at any European court. It consciously and explicitly drew upon the European legal tradition and orientalized Muscovy as an Asiatic despotism. At the same time, it was a characteristically pre-modern document concerned with “specific liberties granted to specific elements of the population, with no reference to natural law, a priori rights, or universality.” The volume concludes with a contribution by Andrii Bovgyria, who examines the link between Cossack historical writing and the transformation of collective identities in the Het­manate. He concentrates on the Khazar ethnogenetic myth that, similarly to the Sarmatian myth of Polish nobility, provided the Ukrainian Cossacks with a ven­erable historic pedigree. Its importance lies in the fact that, contrary to the his­torical tracts written by Ukrainian clerics that emphasized the ethnic unity of the Little and Great Russians, the Khazar myth treated Ukrainians/Little Russians and Muscovites/Great Russians as two fully distinct nations.

NOTES

1 On the writing of Ukrainian history during Soviet times and state policy to­ward academic history writing see: Vitalii laremchuk, Mynule Ukrainy v isto- rychnii nautsi ursr pisliastalins’koidoby (Ostroh, 2009); Andrii Portnov, Istorii istorykiv. Oblychchia i obrazy ukrains’koi istoriohrafiiXX stolittia (Kyiv, 2011); Svitlo i tini ukrains’koho radians’koho istoriopysannia, ed. Valerii Smolii (Kyiv, 2013).

2 Nevertheless, this tradition was continued abroad by Oleksander Ohloblyn, Lev Okinshevich, and several other Ukrainian historians who seized on the occasion to emigrate in the early 1920s or during the Second World War: Oleksander Ohloblyn, Liudy starot Ukratny (Munich, 1959); Oleksandr Ohloblyn, Het’man Ivan Mazepa i ioho doba (New York-Paris-Toronto, i960); Lev Okinshevich, Lektsit z istorit ukratns ’koho prava. Pravo derzhavne. Doba stanovoho suspil'stva (Munich, 1945); Lev Okinshevich, Ukrainian Society and Government, 1648-1781 (Munich, 1978).

3 The most valuable source publications dealt with the history of the Koli'ivshchyna and Haidamak uprisings as well as the social unrest in Left­Bank Ukraine during the second half of the eighteenth century: Haidamat- s'kyi rukh na Ukratni u XVIII st.: zbirnyk dokumentiv (Kyiv, 1970); Selians’kyi rukh na Ukra'ini (seredyna XVIII- persha polovyna XIX st.): zbirnyk dokumen­tiv i materialiv (Kyiv, 1978). On late Soviet source publications in the field of early modern Ukrainian history see, in particular: Andrii Portnov, Tetiana Portnova, “Soviet Ukrainian Historiography in Brezhnev's Closed City: Mykola/ Nikolai Kovalsky and His ‘School' at the Dnipropetrovsk University,” Ab Imperio 4 (2017): 265-91.

4 On the general transformation of the Ukrainian history writing since 1991 see: Serhy Yekelchyk, “Bridging the Past and the Future: Ukrainian History Writing Since Independence,” Canadian Slavonic Papers 53, no. 2/4 (2011): 559-73; Tomasz Stryjek, Jakiej przeszlosci potrzebuje przyszlosc?: interpretacje dziejow narodowych w historiografii i debacie publicznej na Ukrainie, 1991-2004 (Warsaw, 2007).

5 On Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi and the national paradigm see: Serhii Plokhy, Unmaking Imperial Russia: Mykhailo Hrushevsky and the Writing of Ukrainian History (Toronto, 2005). The English edition of Hrushevs'kyi's opus magnum ten-volume “History of Ukraine-Rus'” has recently been published by the cius Press. However, Hrushevs'kyi did not reach the eighteenth century in his magnum opus and in general the national paradigm vision was presented by Dmytro Doroshenko and returned to Ukraine in the reprinting of this work and even more generally in the translation of Orest Subtelny's Ukraine: A History: Dmytro Doroshenko, Narys istorit Ukratny, vol. 1-2 (Warsaw: 1932-1933); Orest Subtelny, Ukraine: A History (Toronto: 1988).

6 Zenon E. Kohut, “In Search of Early Modern Ukrainian Statehood: Post­Soviet Studies of the Cossack Hetmanate,” Journal of Ukrainian Studies 2 (1999): 101-12.

7 See for instance: Valerii Smolii, Valerii Stepankov, Pravoberezhna Ukrama v druhiipolovyni XVII-XVIIIst.: problema derzhavotvorennia (Kyiv, 1993); Olek­sandr Hurzhii, Ukratns 'ka kozats’ka derzhava v druhiipolovyni XVII-XVIII st.: kordony, naselennia, pravo (Kyiv, 1996); Leonid Melnyk, Het’manshchynaper­shot chvertiXVIIIstolittia (Kyiv, 1997); Viktor Horobets', Politychnyi ustrii ukratns’kych zemel druhot polovyny XVII-XVIIIst.: Het’manshchyna, Zapor- izhzhia, Slobozhanshchyna, Pravoberezhna Ukratna (sproba strukturno-funkt- sionalnoho analizu) (Kyiv, 2000); Viktor Horobets', Prysmerk Het’manshchyny: Ukratna v roky reform Petra I (Kyiv, 1998); Taras Chukhlib, Kozats 'kyi ustrii Pravoberezhnot Ukratny ostann'ot chvertiXVIIIst. (Kyiv, 1996); Taras Chukhlib, Het’many i monarkhy. Ukratns’ka derzhava v mizhnarodnych vidnosynakh, 1648-1714 (Kyiv, 2003); Viktor Zaruba, Ukratns'ke kozats'ke viisko v rosiisko- turetskikh viinakh ostann 'ot cherti XVII st. (Dnipropetrovsk, 2003); Olena Apanovych, Chortomlyts’kaZaporoz'ka Sich (Kyiv, 1998); Roman Shyian, Kozatstvo Pivdennot Ukratny v ostannii chverti XVIII st. (Zaporizhzhia, 1998); Valerii Smolii, ed., Ukratns ’ke suspil 'stvo na zlami seredn ’ovichchia i novoho chasu: narysy z istorit mental ’nosti i national 'not svidomosti (Kyiv, 2001).

8 Historiographic overview of these studies devoted to the Hetmanate provided by Zenon Kohut: Zenon E. Kohut, “Post-Soviet Studies of the Cossack Elite: The Present State of Research and Future Tasks,” in The Future of the Past: New Perspectives on Ukrainian History, ed. Serhii Plokhy, 363-74 (Cambridge, ma: 2016). On the Cossack starshyna of Sloboda Ukraine see: Volodymyr Masliichuk, Kozats 'ka starshyna Slobids 'kych polkiv druhot polovyny XVII - pershot tretyny XVIIIst. (Kharkiv, 2009); Volodymyr Masliichuk, Provintsiia na perekhresti kul 'tur (doslidzhennia z istorit Slobids 'kot Ukratny XVII-XIX st.) (Kharkiv, 2007); Svitlana Potapenko, “Cossack Officials in Sloboda Ukraine: From Local Elite to Imperial Nobility?” in P. Marczewski and S. Eich, eds, Dimensions of Modernity. The Enlightenment and its Contested Legacies. IWM Junior Visiting Fellows’ Conferences, vol. 34 (Vienna, 2015). On the his­tory of everyday life see: Olena Dziuba, Pryvatne zhyttia kozats ’kot starshyny XVIII st. (na materialakh epistoliarnot spadshyny) (Kyiv, 2012); Tetiana Tairova-Iakovleva, Povsiakdennia, dozvillia i tradytsit kozats ’kot elity Het’manshchyny (Kyiv, 2017).

9 Post-Soviet Ukrainian historians mostly did not pay heed to the astute con­clusions of Orest Subtelny who back in the 1980s pointed to the lack of a clear separation between private and public spheres and questioned the possibility of the application of the concept of the (modern) state to the Cossack Het­manate, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and a number of other East European societies who in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were disproportionately dominated by the noble estate and retreated into agricul- turalism and traditionalism: Orest Subtelny, The Mazepists: Ukrainian Sepa­ratism in the Early Eighteenth Century (New York, 1981); Orest Subtelny,

Domination of Eastern Europe: Native Nobilities and Foreign Absolutism, 1500­1715 (Kingston and Montreal, 1986).

10 Critical overview of this current provided by Natalia Iakovenko: Natalia Iakovenko, “U kol'orakh proletars'koi revolutsii,” Ukra'ins’kyi humanitarnyi ohliad 3 (2000): 58-78; Natalia Iakovenko, “Skil'ky oblych u viiny: Khmel'ny- chchyna ochyma suchasnykiv,” in Natalia Iakovenko, Paralel 'nyi svit: doslidzhennia z istorii uiavlen 'ta idei v Ukraini XVI-XVII st. (Kyiv, 2002), 189-229.

11 Georgii Kasianov, “‘Piknik na obochine': osmyslenie imperskogo proshlogo v sovremennoi ukrainskoi istoriografii,” in Novaia imperskaia istoriia postsovet- skogo prostranstva, ed. I. Gerasimov, S. Glebov, A. Kaplunovskii, M. Mogilner, A. Semenov (Kazan, 2004), 81-108; Volodymyr Kravchenko, “Ukraina, imperiia, Rosiia. Ohliad suchasnoi istoriohrafii,” in Volodymyr Kravchenko, Ukraina, imperiia, Rosiia. Vybrani statti z moderno: istorii ta istoriohrafii (Kyiv, 2011), 391-454.

12 Zenon E. Kohut, “The Development of a Little Russian Identity: A Stage in Ukrainian Nationbuilding,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 3-4 (1986): 559-76.

13 Frank E. Sysyn, “Concepts of Nationhood in Ukrainian History Writing, 1620-1690,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 3-4 (1986): 393-423; Frank E. Sysyn, “Fatherland in Early Eighteenth-Century Ukrainian Political Culture,” in Mazepa e il suo tempo: storia, cultura, società, ed. G. Siedlina (Alessandria, 2004); Frank E. Sysyn, “The Persistence of the Little-Russian Fatherland in the Russian Empire: The Evidence from The History of the Rus’ or of Little Rossia (Istoriia Rusov ili Maloi Rossii),” in Imperienverngleich. Beispiele und Ansätze aus osteruopäischer Perspective. Festscrich für Andreas Kappeler, ed. G. Hausmann and A. Rustermeyer (Wiesbaden, 2009), 39-49; Frank E. Sysyn, “Ukrainian Nation-Building in the Early Modern Period: New Research Findings,” in Theatrum Humanae Vitae. Studii na poshanu Natali Iakovenko, ed. Maksym Iaremenko (Kyiv, 2012), 358-70.

14 Serhii Plokhy, The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus (Cambridge, ma, 2006); Serhii Plokhy, Ukraine and Russia: Representations of the Past (Toronto, 2008): 19-48; Serhii Plokhy,

The Cossack Myth: History and Nationhood in the Age of Empires (Cambridge, ma, 2012).

15 Andrii Bovgyria, Kozats'ke istoriopysannia v rukopysnii tradytsii XVIII st. (Kyiv, 2010).

16 Volodymyr Kravchenko, Kharkov/Kharkiv: stolitsa pogranich 'ia (Vilnius, 2010).

17 Masliichuk, Provintsiia na perekhresti kul'tur.

18 Volodymyr Sklokin, Rosiis 'ka imperiia i Slobids 'ka Ukratna u druhii polovyni XVIIIst.:prosvichenyi absoliutyzm, impers’ka intehratsiia, lokal’ne suspil'stvo (Lviv, 2019).

19 Vadym Adadurov and Volodymyr Sklokin, eds, Impers ki identychnosti v ukratnskii istoritXVIII-pershotpolovyny XIXst. (Lviv, 2020).

20 Steven Seegel, Ukraine under Western Eyes: The Bohdan and Neonila Krawciw Ucrainica Map Collection (Cambridge, ma, 2013); Kyrylo Halushko, “Ukraina na kartakh XVII-XVII st.: vid ‘Dykoho Polia' do ‘Krainy Kozakiv,'” in Ukratn- s'ka derzhava druhotpolovynyXVII-XVIIIst.:polityka, suspil'stvo, kul’tura, ed. Valerii Smolii (Kyiv, 2014), 530-55; Natalia Yakovenko, “Choice of Name versus Choice of Path: The Names of Ukrainian Territories from the Late Sixteenth to the Late Seventeenth Century,” in A Laboratory of Transnational History: Ukraine and Recent Ukrainian Historiography, ed. Georgii Kasianov, Philipp Ther (Budapest, 2009), 117-48; Volodymyr Kravchenko, “Im'ia dlia Ukrainy,” in Volodymyr Kravchenko, Ukratna, imperiia, Rosiia: vybrani statti z modernot istorit ta istoriohrafit (Kyiv, 2011), 11-45; Volodymyr Kravchenko, Kharkov/Kharkiv: stolitsa pogranichia (Vilnius, 2010); Volodymyr Sklokin, “Slobids'ka Ukraina u symvolichnii heohrafii Rosiis'koi imperii (60-90-ti roky XVIII stolittia),” Naukovi Zapysky Ukratnskoho Katolytskoho Univer- sytetu: Seriia Istoriia 3 (2019): 13-28; Vadym Adadurov, “Ot mental'noi kartografii k voennoi topografii: predstavleniia frantsuzov o vostochno- evropeiskom prostranstve nakanune 1812 goda (na primere iugo-zapadnykh okrain Rossiiskoi imperii),” in Napoleonovskiie voiny na mental'nykh kartakh Evropy: istoricheskoe soznanie i literaturnye mify, ed. N.M. Velikaia and E.D. Gal'tsova (Moscow, 2011), 23-43.

21 See in particular: Vadym Adadurov, “Der orientalistische Diskurs in der eu­ropäischen Literatur des 18. Jahrhunderts: die Ägyptenreisen von Constantin- Francois Volney (1787) und Jan Potocki (1788),” in Jan Potocki (1761-1815): Grenzgänger zwischen Disziplinen und Kulturen, ed. Erik Martin, Lena Seauve, Klaus Weber (Berlin, 2019), 157-68; Iryna Papa, “(Ne)povsiakdenne zhyttia dans'koho dyplomata v Rosii (za materialamy podorozhnioho shodennyka Iusta Iulia, 1709-1711),” Naukovi Zapysky nuukma: Istorychni Nauky 1(2018): 3-11; Iryna Papa, “‘En by i Rusland': uiavlenniia dans'kykh mandrivnykiv pro tereny ranniomodernoi Rosii (za materialamy podorozhn'oho shchodennyka Iusta Iulia, 1709-1711),” Mist: misto, kul’tura, suspil’stvo. E-zhurnal urbanistych- nykh studii 1 (2019): 83-95; Nelli Kholtobina, “Polietnichna struktura Rossi- is'koi imperii na mental'nykh mapakh brytantsiv XVIII st.,” Naukovi Zapysky NauKMA: Istorychni Nauky 1 (2018): 11-17; Kateryna Dysa, “Bil'she, nizh putivnyk: emotsiinyi vidhuk i osobysti vrazhennia vid mandrivok do Kyieva v podorozhnikh zapyskakh zlamu XVIII-XIX st.,” Naukovi Zapysky noukma: Istorychni Nauky 1 (2018): 18-25; Natalia Voloshkova, “On Terrains of the Other Empire: Mary Holderness's Account of Her Residence in Early 19th Century Crimea,” in British Women Travelers: Empire and Beyond, 1770-1870, ed. Sutapa Dutta (New York and London, 2020), 70-85; Denys Shatalov, “Ukrains'ki zemli, impers'ka istoriia: kozats'ki pam'iatky u spryiniatti rosi- is'kykh mandrivnykiv kintsia XVIII - pershoi polovyny XIX st.,” Kharkivs 'kyi istoriohrafichnyi zbirnyk 15 (2016): 252-61; chapters “Russia ‘discovers' Ukraine” and “From ‘Russian Jerusalem' to ‘Slavic Pompeii',” in Aleksei Tolochko, Kievskaia Rus’ i Malorossiia vXIX veke (Kyiv, 2012).

22 Borys Gudziak, Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriar­chate of Constantinople, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest (Cambridge, ma, 1998); Serhii Plokhy, The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine (Ox­ford, 2001); Frank E. Sysyn, “The Formation of Modern Ukrainian Religious Culture: The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in Religion and Nation

in Modern Ukraine, ed. Frank E. Sysyn and Serhii Plokhy (Edmonton­Toronto, 2003), 1-22; Maksym Iaremenko, Kyivs 'ke chernetstvo XVIII st. (Kyiv, 2007); Barbara Skinner, The Western Front of the Eastern Church: Uniate and Orthodox Conflict in Eighteenth-century Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia (DeKalb, 2009); Andrzej Gil, Ihor Skoczylas, Koscioty wschodnie wpanstwie polsko-litewskim wprocesie przemian i adaptacji: metropolia kijowska w latach 1458-1795 (Lublin-Lviv, 2014); Larry Wolff, Disunion within the Union: The Uniate Church and the Partitions of Poland (Cambridge, ma, 2019); Ihor Lyman, Rosiis 'kapravoslavna tserkva na pivdni Ukrainy ostann'oi chverti XVIII - seredyny XIX st. (Zaporizhzhia, 2004). The collective research project “Kyi- van Christianity and the Uniate Tradition” initiated by Ihor Skochylias and affiliated with the Ukrainian Catholic University has been particularly impor­tant in this regard. The project has been publishing the multivolume book series “Kyivan Christianity” which focuses on early modern religious history. See in particular: Maksym Iaremenko, Pered vyklykamy unifikatsii i dystsyplin- uvannia: Kyivs’kapravoslavna mytropoliia u XVIII st. (Lviv, 2017); Viktoriia Bilyk, Oksana Karlina, Zhyva spil 'nota v impers komu sviti: Luts ’ka hreko- uniina eparkhiia kintsia XVIII-pershoi tretyny XIX st. (Lviv, 2018); Na perekhresti kul 'tur: monastyr i khram Presviatoi Triitsi u Vil 'niusi, ed. Alfredas Bumblauskas, Salvijus Kulevi ius, and Ihor Skochylias (Lviv, 2019).

23 For a good introduction to the field of “empire studies” in modern historiog­raphy and social sciences, see the following: S. Howe, “Introduction: New Imperial Histories,” in The New Imperial Histories Reader, ed. Stephen Howe, 1 20 (London and New York, 2010); J. Burbank and F. Cooper, eds, Empires in World History: Power and Politics of Difference (Princeton and Oxford, 2010); Alexander Motyl, Imperial Ends. The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires (New York, 2001).

24 Zenon E. Kohut, Russian Centralism and Ukrainian Autonomy: Imperial Absorption of the Hetmanate, iy6os~i83os. (Cambridge, ma, 1988). Kohut's monograph was translated into Ukrainian in 1996 and exerted significant impact on the new generation of students of the eighteenth-century history of Cossackdom in Ukraine.

25 Serhii Plokhy, Ukraine and Russia: Representations of the Past (Toronto, 2008); Serhii Plokhy, The Cossack Myth: History and Nationhood in the Age of Empires (Cambridge, ma, 2012).

26 Viktor Horobets', Volymo tsaria skhidnoho’: Ukra'ins’kyi Het'manat i rosiis'ka dynastiia do ipislia Pereiaslava (Kyiv, 2007).

27 Kravchenko, Kharkov/Kharkiv: stolitsa pogranichia; Kravchenko, Ukraina, imperiia, Rosiia.

28 Masliichuk, Provintsiia na perekhresti kul'tur.

29 Sklokin, Rosiis'ka imperiia i Slobids'ka Ukratna u druhiipolovyniXVIIIst.

30 Debates on Mazepa's legacy summarized in: Mazepa e il suo tempo: storia, cultura, società, ed. G. Siedlina (Alessandria, 2004); Ivan Mazepa i mazepyntsi: istoriia ta kul 'tura Ukrainy ostannioi tretyny XVII - pochatku XVIII st., ed. Ihor Skochylias (Lviv, 2011); Poltava 1709: The Battle and the Myth, ed. Serhii Plokhy (Cambridge, ma, 2012); Vladyslav latsenko, “Osoblyvosti zobrazhen- nia Het'mana Ivana Mazepy v suchasnii rosiis'kii istoriohrafii: holovni tendentsii,” Ukra'ins’kyi istorychnyi zbirnyk 17(2014): 257-78; Tatiana Tairova- Iakovleva, Ivan Mazepa i Rossis ’ka imperiia: istoriia “zrady” (Kyiv, 2017). On the orientalization of Ukrainians in the Russian Empire see: Vitalii Kiselev, Tattiana Vasil'eva, “‘Strannoe politicheskoe somnishe' ili ‘narod, poiushii i pliashushii': konstruirovanie obraza Ukrainy v russkoi slovesnosti kontsa XVIII - nachala XIX veka,” in Tam vnutri: praktiki vnutrennei kolonizatsii v kul ’turnoi istorii Rossii, ed. Aleksandr Etkind, Dirk Uffelman, Illia Kukulin (Moscow, 2012), 478-517.

31 Volodymyr Mil'chev, Sotsial’na istoriia zaporoz’koho kozatstva kintsia XVII- XVIIIst. (Zaporizhzhia, 2008); Volodymyr Mil'chev, Narysy z istoriizaporiz'- koho kozatstva XVIII stolittia (Zaporizhzhia, 2009); Viktor Horobets', Vlada ta sotsium Het ’manata. Doslidzhennia z politychnoi ta sotsial ’noi istorii ran ’o- modernoi Ukrainy (Kyiv, 2009). The journal Sotsium. Al’manakh sotsial ’noi is­torii, founded by the Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences in 2002, has played an important role in this regard. The journal's focus is on a broadly conceived social history of the early modern era, including the eighteenth century. See in particular: Viktor Horobets', “Naskil'ky novoiu ie ‘nova sotsial'na istoriia' v ukralns'komu prochytanni?” Sotsium. Al 'manakh sotsial’not istorit5 (2005): 7-9; Viktor Horobets', “Mali sotsial'ni ta sotsio- profesiini hrupy Het'manatu: ‘kurinchyky,' ‘stril'tsi,' ‘proteksiianty,’ ‘dvoriany,' etc.” Sotsium. Al’manakh sotsial’not istorit 8 (2008): 184-201; Oksana Karlina, “Sotsial'na struktura naselennia mist i mistechok Volyns'kol hubernii naprykintsi XVIII st.” Sotsium. Al 'manakh sotsial 'not istorit 10 (2013): 97-114.

32 Maksym laremenko, “Akademiky” ta “akademiia”: sotsial 'na istoriia osvity i osvichennosti v Ukratni XVIII st. (Kharkiv, 2014); Liudmyla Posokhova, Na perekhresti kul 'tur, tradytsii, epokh: pravoslavni kolehiumy Ukratny naprykintsi XVII- na pochatku XIX st. (Kharkiv, 2011); Volodymyr Masliichuk, Zdobutky ta iliuzit: osvitni initsiatyvy na Livoberezhnii ta Slobids 'kii Ukratni druhot polovyny XVIII- pochatku XIX st. (Kharkiv, 2018). The history of eighteenth­century and more broadly - early modern - education is actively discussed on the pages of the journal Kyivs 'ka Akademiia published by the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy since 2004.

33 Oleksii Sokyrko, Lytsari druhoho sortu: naimane viis'ko Livoberezhnot Het manshchyny, 1669-1726 rr. (Kyiv, 2006); Vadym Nazarenko, “‘Dlia posylok v Tsar'grad i drugie okrestnye gosudarstva': kyivski reitary XVIII st.” Sotsium. Al 'manakh sotsial 'not istorit 13-14 (2017): 41-58; Vadym Adadurov, “Napoleonida” na skhodi Ievropy: uiavlennia, proekty ta dial ’nist’ uriadu Frantsit shchodo pivdenno-zakhidnykh okratn Rossis 'kot imperii na pochatku XIX stolittia (Lviv, 2018); Vadim Adadurov, Voina tsivilizatsii: sotsio-kul'tur- naia istoriia russkogo pokhoda Napoleona, vol. 1: Religiia-Iazyk (Kyiv, 2017).

34 Kateryna Dysa, “Rol'rodyny v ukralns'kykh sudakh pro chary,” Sotsium. Al ’- manakh sotsial’not istorit 5 (2005): 185-95; Viktor Horobets', “Prybutkove sud- divs'ke remeslo: ‘vyna pans'ka' i ‘vyna vradova' u sudochynstvi Het'manatu,” Sotsium. Al’manakh sotsial’not istorit 7 (2007): 175-93; Oleksii Sokyrko, “Skil'ky koshtuie porozuminnia: ‘poklony' i ‘naklady' v ukralns'kykh sudakh pershol cherti XVIII st.” Sotsium. Al’manakh sotsial 'not istorit 7 (2007): 125-209.

35 Orest Zaiats', Hromadiany L ’vova XIV-XVIII st.: pravovyi status, sklad, pokhodzhennia (Lviv, 2012); Myron Kapral', “Modernizatsiia chy transformat- siia? Sotsial'ne zhyttia ukralns'koho mista na prykladi hromady lvivs'kykh shevtsiv XVII-XVIII st.,” Kyivs’ka Akademiia 12 (2014-2015): 241-56; Mykola Krykun, “Iak obyraly i skydaly viitiv u pryvatnykh mistechkakh Podil's'koho voevodstva v pershii chverti XVIII st.,” Sotsium. Al'manakh sotsial’not istorit 7 (2007): 212-22; Oksana Karlina, “Konflikt mizh tradytsiieiu mis'koho samovriaduvannia i systemoiu mis'koho upravlinnia na Volyni naprykintsi XVIII - v pershykh desiatylittiakh XIX st.,” Sotsium. Al'manakh sotsial’no'i istorii 7 (2007): 280-9; Ihor Serdiuk, Polkovykh horodov obyvateli: istoryko- demohrafichna kharakterystyka mis’koho naselennia Het’manshyny druhoi polovyny XVIIIst. (Poltava, 2011); Iurii Voloshyn, Kozaky ipospolyti: mis’ka spil’nota Poltavy druho'ipolovyny XVIIIst. (Kyiv, 2016).

36 For a historiographic overview of the developments in this field see: Igor Serdiuk, Yuriy Voloshyn, “Historical Demography in Ukraine: From ‘Political Arithmetic' to Non-political History,” Poland’s Demographic Past 41 (2019): 9-32.

37 Volodymyr Masliichuk, “Deviantna povedinka zhinky na Slobozhanshchyni u 80-kh rokakh XVIII st.” Sotsium. Al'manakh sotsial’no'i istorii 5 (2005): 197­215; Volodymyr Masliichuk, “Pro ‘bat'kivstvo' i ‘materynstvo' na Livoberezhnii Ukraini druhoi polovyny XVIII st.” Narodna tvorchist’ta etnohrafiia 5 (2008): 21-26; Natalia Bilous, “Nasyl'stvo nad zhinkamy: siuzhety z mishans'koho i selians'koho povsiakdennia Volyni XVI - pochatku XVIII st.” Sotsium. Al '- manakh sotsial’no'i istorii 11 (2015): 135-47; Olha Posunko, “‘V rassuzhdenii zhenskago polu mne neudobno..zakhyst mainovykh interesiv zhinok v sudakh Katerynoslavs'koho namisnytstva u 80-90-h rokakh XVIII st.,” Sot­sium. Al’manakh sotsial’no'i istorii 13-14 (2017): 21-32.

38 Ihor Serdiuk, Malen’kyi doroslyi: dytyna i dytynstvo vHet'manshchyniXVIII st. (Kyiv, 2018); Volodymyr Masliichuk, Ditozhubnytsvo na Livoberezhnii i Slobids'kii Ukraini u druhiipolovyniXVIIIst. (Kharkiv, 2008); Volodymyr Masliichuk, “Stavlennia do ditei ta pidlitkiv u druhii polovyni XVIII st. (Livoberezhna ta Slobids'ka Ukraina)” Kyivs’ka starovyna 1-2 (2009): 64-73; Volodymyr Masliichuk, Nepovnolitni zlochyntsi v Kharkivs ’komu namisnytsvi, 1780-1796 (Kharkiv, 2011).

39 Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern, The Golden Age Shtetl: A New History of Jewish Life in East Europe (Princeton and Oxford, 2015); Myron Kapral', “Antyiev- ereis'ki zavorushennia i pohromy u L'vovi XVII-XVIII st.,” Sotsium. Al'- manakh sotial’noi istorii 2 (2003): 89-100; Daniel Beavois, Pouvoir russe et noblesse polonaise en Ukraine 1793-1830 (Paris, 2003); Myron Kapral', “Isto- ryko-pravova superechka ukrains'koi i pol's'koi hromad L'vova v pershii polovyni XVIII st.,” Sotsium. Al’manakh sotsial 'noi istorii 7 (2007): 223-30; Volodymyr Mil'chev, Bolhars’kipereselentsi napivdni Ukrainy, 1724-1800 (Kyiv-Zaporizhzhia, 2001); Vladyslav Hrybovs'kyi, “Nohais'ki Ordy v polity- chnii systemi Kryms'koho Hanstva,” Ukraina v Tsentral’no-Skhidnii Ievropi 8 (2008): 139-71; Dmytro Mieshkov, Zhyttievyi svitprychornomorskikh nimtsiv (1781-1871) (Kyiv, 2017); Julia Malitska, Negotiating Imperial Rule: Colonists and Marriage in the Nineteenth-Century Black Sea Steppe (Stockholm, 2017);

Volodymyr Masliichuk, Philip Dykan, Maksym Rosenfeld, Deutsche Kharkov/Nemetskii Kharkov (Kharkov, 2015).

40 Volodymyr Masliichuk, “Rosiis'ko-ukrains'ki vidnosyny na Slobids'kii Ukraini druhoi polovyny XVII st.,” in Masliichuk, Provintsiia na perekhresti kul 'tur, 12-26; Nazarenko, “‘Dlia posylok v Tsar'grad i drugie okrestnye gosu- darstva': Kyivski reitary XVIII st.,” 41-58; Volodymyr Masliichuk, “Tsikava zvistka pro hrekiv u Kharkovi 60-kh rr. XVIII st.,” in Masliichuk, Provintsiia na perekhresti kul 'tur, 42-7.

41 Ukraine and Russia in Their Historical Encounter, ed. Peter J. Potichnyj, Marc Raeff, Jaroslaw Pelenski, and Gleb N. Zekulin (Edmonton, 1992); Culture, Nation, Identity: The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter (1600-1945), ed. Mark von Hagen, Andreas Kappeler, Zenon E. Kohut, and Frank Sysyn (Edmonton, 2003); Peter J. Potichnyj, Poland and Ukraine: Past and Present (Edmonton, 1980). Numerous studies by Myron Kapral devoted to early modern Lviv might serve as a good example of such an inclusive approach sensitive to

the multi-ethnic character of eighteenth-century Ukrainian history: Myron Kapral', Natsional 'ni hromady L ’vova XVI-XVIII st. (sotsial 'no-pravovi vzaiemyny) (Lviv, 2003); Myron Kapral', “‘Natsional'nyi' L'viv XVI-XVIII st. v istoriohrafii,” in L’viv: misto, suspil'stvo, kul'tura, ed. Olena Arkusha and Mar'ian Mudryi (Lviv, 2007), 17-34; Myron Kapral', Liudy korporatsii: l’vivs’kyi shevs’kyi tsekh u XVII-XVIII st. (Lviv, 2012).

42 On the developments in global eighteenth-century studies see the special issue “The State of the Discipline” of the Journal for Eighteenth-Century Stud­ies, vol. 34, no 4 (2011): M.O. Grenby, “Introduction,” Journal for Eighteenth­Century Studies 34, no. 4 (2011): 425-34.

43 For historiographic discussions on the Ukrainian Enlightenment see: Volodymyr Sklokin, “U poshukakh ukrains'koho Prosvitnytstva,” in Sklokin, Rosiis'ka imperiia i Slobids'ka Ukraina u druhiipolovyniXVIIIst., 224-40. Many more efforts have been invested into the study of the Ukrainian Baroque from the perspective of literary studies and architecture, see in par­ticular: Anatolii Makarov, Svitlo ukrains’koho Baroko (Kyiv, 1994); Ukra'ins’ke Baroko, ed. Dmytro Nalyvaiko and Leonid Uskalov (Kharkiv, 2004); Leonid Ushkalov, Esei pro ukra'ins’ke Baroko (Kharkiv, 2006); Ihor Isychenko, Dukhovni vymiry barokovoho tekstu: literaturoznavchi doslidzhennia (Kharkiv, 2016).

44 This approach has been among others adopted by Natalia Iakovenko and Iaroslav Hrytsak, authors of the most influential accounts of Ukrainian his­tory written in the post-Soviet period: Natalia Iakovenko, Narys istorii sered- n’ovichnoii rann’omodernoi Ukrainy (Kyiv, 2005); Iaroslav Hrytsak, Narys istorii Ukrainy: formuvannia modernoi ukrains’koi natsiiXIX-XX st. (Kyiv, 2019).

45 The concept of the “long” eighteenth century was first introduced and dis­cussed in the 1980s by the historians of the British Empire, see in particular: J.C.D. Clark, English Society, 1688-1832: Ideology, Social Structure and Political Practice During the Ancien Regime (Cambridge, 1985); Theodore K. Rabb, The Struggle for Stability in Early Modern Europe (Oxford, 1975); Steve Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution (New Haven-London, 2009). On the application of this concept to the history of the Russian Empire, see: Anna Anan'eva, “‘Dolgii XVIII vek': kharakternye cherty periodizatsii vne kalen- darnoi khronologii i primenenie kontsepta k rossiiskoi istorii,” in Izobretenie veka: problemy i modeli vremeni v Rossii i Evrope XIX stoletiia, ed. Elena Vishlenkova and Denis Sdvizkov (Moscow, 2013), 319-28. Even though most students of the Russian Empire accept the concept of the “long” eighteenth century, which stretches from the beginning of Peter I's till the end of Alexan­der I's reigns, this period is often seen as a “seemingly meaningless past.” The main reason is that the eighteenth century is overshadowed by the next prerevolutionary epoch, which pushed Russia in a different direction: Luba Golburt, The First Epoch: The Eighteenth Century and the Russian Cultural Imagination (Madison, wi, 2014), 4; Andrey V. Ivanov, A Spiritual Revolution: The Impact of Reformation and Enlightenment in Orthodox Russia (Madison, wi, 2020), 12-13.

46 Herman Paul, Key Issues in Historical Theory (New York, 2015), 22.