RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      페레야슬라브 회의가 러시아-우크라이나에 끼친 영향과 역사적 평가

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A77056336

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

      The Pereyaslav Rada in 1654 was the historical arena for the kazaki led by Hetman Bohdan Khmel’nytsky to obtain the Russian support and cooperation in the course of getting independence from the Poland’s rule. But, In result, Russia succeeded in expanding her territory to the southern part, the current Ukraine with the rationale of the rule.
      I want to classify the historical significance of the event as two contradictory but relevant point of views: one traditional and the other liberal. From the former the Pereyaslav Rada was considered as the kazak’s voluntary council and treaty to get the Russian rule in Ukraine. So Russia had a good reason to be there on the basis of the orthodox religion and the common history of Kievan Rus. Russia and Ukraine regained the unification by the Rada since the Mongol and Poland’s rule existed. The kazak’s struggle against Poland has the legitimacy in view of national liberation, so it is natural for Russia to support kazaki.
      From the other point of view, the concept of ‘reunification’ is severely challenged by the emerging Ukrainian historians. They all have questioned the rationale of the Rada in the meaning of international law. And They emphasized the independent tendency of the kazaki. They regarded the Pereyaslava Rada as the simple and oral declaration of Bohdan Khmel’nytsky. So it was not important. The Pereyaslav Rada was the temporary tactics by the kazaki. The kazaki always pursued for independence under the situation of the struggle between Russia and Poland.
      In conclusion, Khmel’nytsky’s efforts to struggle against Poland can be evaluated as positive from the point of Ukrainian history. But his efforts and the Pereyaslav Rada have simultaneously the negative evaluation because it gave the legitimacy of invasion of Russia over the Ukrainian territory and its long tragic rule.
      번역하기

      The Pereyaslav Rada in 1654 was the historical arena for the kazaki led by Hetman Bohdan Khmel’nytsky to obtain the Russian support and cooperation in the course of getting independence from the Poland’s rule. But, In result, Russia succeeded in e...

      The Pereyaslav Rada in 1654 was the historical arena for the kazaki led by Hetman Bohdan Khmel’nytsky to obtain the Russian support and cooperation in the course of getting independence from the Poland’s rule. But, In result, Russia succeeded in expanding her territory to the southern part, the current Ukraine with the rationale of the rule.
      I want to classify the historical significance of the event as two contradictory but relevant point of views: one traditional and the other liberal. From the former the Pereyaslav Rada was considered as the kazak’s voluntary council and treaty to get the Russian rule in Ukraine. So Russia had a good reason to be there on the basis of the orthodox religion and the common history of Kievan Rus. Russia and Ukraine regained the unification by the Rada since the Mongol and Poland’s rule existed. The kazak’s struggle against Poland has the legitimacy in view of national liberation, so it is natural for Russia to support kazaki.
      From the other point of view, the concept of ‘reunification’ is severely challenged by the emerging Ukrainian historians. They all have questioned the rationale of the Rada in the meaning of international law. And They emphasized the independent tendency of the kazaki. They regarded the Pereyaslava Rada as the simple and oral declaration of Bohdan Khmel’nytsky. So it was not important. The Pereyaslav Rada was the temporary tactics by the kazaki. The kazaki always pursued for independence under the situation of the struggle between Russia and Poland.
      In conclusion, Khmel’nytsky’s efforts to struggle against Poland can be evaluated as positive from the point of Ukrainian history. But his efforts and the Pereyaslav Rada have simultaneously the negative evaluation because it gave the legitimacy of invasion of Russia over the Ukrainian territory and its long tragic rule.

      더보기

      목차 (Table of Contents)

      • Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
      • Ⅱ. 카자크 민족봉기와 보흐단 흐멜니츠키
      • Ⅲ. 페레야슬라브 회의와 러시아, 우크라이나의 상황변화
      • Ⅳ. 페레야슬라브 회의에 관한 평가 및 역사적 의의
      • Ⅴ. 맺는 말
      • Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
      • Ⅱ. 카자크 민족봉기와 보흐단 흐멜니츠키
      • Ⅲ. 페레야슬라브 회의와 러시아, 우크라이나의 상황변화
      • Ⅳ. 페레야슬라브 회의에 관한 평가 및 역사적 의의
      • Ⅴ. 맺는 말
      • 참고문헌
      • ABSTRACT
      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 "키릴메토디우스 형제단과 근대 우크라이나의 민족정체성 형제단 지식인들의 담론구성을 중심으로" 2004

      2 "코사크의 역사와 우크라이나 지식인들" 31 : 2003

      3 "참 고 문 헌"

      4 "우크라이나 민족교회의 부흥과 러시아 정교회 페레스트로이카 시기를 중심으로" ” 한국슬라브학회 1998

      5 "우니아트 교회성립의 역사적 의의" 2005

      6 "“The Formation of Modern Ukrainian Religious Culture Nation and State in Russia and Ukraine" Martin’s Press 1–22

      7 "сторя Украни: документи матерали. Кив Академя" 2002

      8 "Спорные проблемы русскоукраинских отношений в первой половине и середине XVII в,Белоруссия и Украина: История и культура, ежегодник 2003" 2004

      9 "Русская церковь во времена патриарха Никона (16521658)" 2003

      10 "Руна гетьманщини вд Переяславсько ради2 до Андрусвсько угоди (16591667)" 2003

      1 "키릴메토디우스 형제단과 근대 우크라이나의 민족정체성 형제단 지식인들의 담론구성을 중심으로" 2004

      2 "코사크의 역사와 우크라이나 지식인들" 31 : 2003

      3 "참 고 문 헌"

      4 "우크라이나 민족교회의 부흥과 러시아 정교회 페레스트로이카 시기를 중심으로" ” 한국슬라브학회 1998

      5 "우니아트 교회성립의 역사적 의의" 2005

      6 "“The Formation of Modern Ukrainian Religious Culture Nation and State in Russia and Ukraine" Martin’s Press 1–22

      7 "сторя Украни: документи матерали. Кив Академя" 2002

      8 "Спорные проблемы русскоукраинских отношений в первой половине и середине XVII в,Белоруссия и Украина: История и культура, ежегодник 2003" 2004

      9 "Русская церковь во времена патриарха Никона (16521658)" 2003

      10 "Руна гетьманщини вд Переяславсько ради2 до Андрусвсько угоди (16591667)" 2003

      11 "Руна гетьманщини вд Переяславсько ради2 до Андрусвсько угоди (16591667)" 2003

      12 "Проблемы взаимоотношений Украины и России 16541667 ,Бело-руссия и Украина: История и культура, ежегодник 2003" 2004

      13 "Переяславська Рада: сторичне значення та полтичн наслдки" 2003

      14 "Переяславська Рада: 1654 року: СТОРОГРАФЯ ТА ДОСЛДЖЕННЯ" 1654-, 2003

      15 "Переяславская рада 1654 г. и её место в истории Украины,Белоруссия и Украина: История и культура, ежегодник 2004. Москва: Наука" 2005

      16 "Очаги военной силы Украинского народа в конце XVI начале XVIII в,Белоруссия и Украина: История и культура, ежегодник 2003. Мо-сква: Наука" 2004

      17 "Мечта о русском единстве: Киевский синопсис (1674)" 2006

      18 "История Запорожской Сечи" 2003

      19 "Иллюстрированная история Украины. Москва:" 2001

      20 "Договоры войска запорожского с россией и практика взаимоотноше-ний сторон во второй половине 50х 70е годы XII века" 2005

      21 "Tsars and Cossacks:Study in Iconography" 2002

      22 "Treaty of Pereyaslav 1654" 1954

      23 "The Ghosts of Pereyaslav RussoUkrainian Historical Debates in the PostSoviet Era" 2001

      24 "The CossacksStudy and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine" Oxford University Press 2001

      25 "The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine" 2001

      26 "The Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies" -1654, 1982

      27 "Social Turmoil in the SixteenthCentury Ukraine" 1983

      28 "Imperial Absorption of the Hetmanate 17601830s" Harvard University Press 1988

      29 "From the Pereiaslavl Agreement to the Truce of Andrusovo" 1963

      30 "Bohdan Khmelnyts’ky’s Treaty with the Tsar of Muscovy in the U" 1995

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2026 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2020-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2017-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2015-09-23 학회명변경 한글명 : 한국슬라브학회 -> 한국슬라브․유라시아학회
      영문명 : The Korean Association Of Slavic Studies -> The Korean Association of Slavic-Eurasian Studies
      KCI등재
      2013-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2010-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2008-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2005-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2004-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2003-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2002-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      1999-07-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.53 0.53 0.42
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.37 0.35 0.583 0.16
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼