The main purpose of the article is to highlight the content and logic of formation the concepts of the state that emerged among the Ukrainian Orthodox intellectuals in the end of XVI - early XVII century. During this period was decisive for the formation of early modern Ukrainian nation as a new community and the beginning of its struggle for statehood. Major political role in the formation of Ukrainian nation at that time played Cossacks, but the Orthodox clergy not only (...) gave ideological support Cossack, but had his own concept of nation. As the main creators of the concept were Meletius Smotrytsky, Zachariy Kopystensky, Jov Boretskiy, Petro Mohyla. His complete registration it has acquired at the time of the restoration of Orthodox Metropolis of Kyiv and the metropolitan of Petro Mohyla (1620-1646). The principal features of this concept is defined as follows: State Orthodox intellectuals understood as a voluntary association of people of all classes around one idea. This idea was determined public good that church leaders perceived primarily as a transcendent grace. The symbol of grace was heavenly Jerusalem, which advocated earthly projection Kyiv. Orthodox church leaders deliberately refused confession from the ideal state for aggressive ideal spiritual state. This identified a fundamental difference from the then existing state ideologies of the Rzeczpospolita and Moskovia. Ruler of the concept of the ideal state is determined Orthodox hierarchs not a person but a state, personified in its most charismatic spokespersons. At first, the prince, then the gentry, then the Cossacks. The main objective is the defense of the state governor and care about the welfare of his subjects. At the same time Ukrainian clerics fundamentally alien to the idea of autocracy, they differ greatly from contemporary Moscow clergy. Another important feature of the state concept Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Cossack era is persistent assertion priority of the spiritual over the secular government that does not coincide with the ideals of the Cossacks and was often a source of conflict. The main conclusions of the note is the fundamental notions of state formation in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the difference between these concepts from Moscow-Byzantine ideology and proximity to European humanistic model of the state than is largely due to the role of the Orthodox Church in the national liberation revolution led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky and conflicts Kyiv Metropolis with the Moscow Patriarchate in the future. (shrink)

The article describes evolutionary process of the ideas about the state, which were formed by Ukrainian Orthodox intellectuals in the end of the XVI - the first half of the XVII century. Established, that on the development of these ideas had considerable influenced political circumstances of Ukrainian Cossack state in the second half of the XVII century. Varied Nation orientations available in Ukrainian political elite caused at that time the political split of Ukrainian society which reflected on the church life. (...) Some part of Church leaders tended to association with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the convergence with the Greek Catholic Church, the rest were supporters of political union with Moscow and rapprochement with Moscow Orthodoxy. However, both groups of Ukrainian Orthodox intellectuals defended the independence of the Kyiv Metropolis. Accordingly, representatives of both political orientations in church circles had their own opinion on the nature of the state, the governor responsibilities, composition of nation and its political rights, the relationship between the secular and ecclesiastical authority in the ideal state. Two outstanding representatives of these viewpoints were Sofonovych F. and I. Gisel. There are many ways where their views are identical, so: both agreed about the priority of ecclesiastical authority over secular, Kyiv's role as a center of Orthodox state, about the existence of a sovereign Ukrainian nation as an ethnic and religious communities. However, they also had fundamental differences: in F. Sofonovych's "Chronicle" sense of the state's existence and first responsibility of the governor was to ensure the public good, the conception of political nation extends to the whole society, the governor is the monarch in the European sense, who should be accountable to his lieges. Instead of that in I. Gisela's "Synopsis" meaning of the state was described in citizens' association in a single church, the governor is autocrat that answers only to the face of God, as the political nation was described only a minor group of nobility and its features were limited. In that way, we can assume that the concept of state, represented in work by Sofonovych F. indicates the beginning of the transition from early modern to modern Ukrainian nation and the continuation of the idea of Ukrainian sovereignty. Theory by Gisela I., whereas, the initial point of departure of Enlightenment concept of absolutism, which later was developed by Prokopovich F., and embodies the idea of an Orthodox empire which in the political sense coincides with the Russian Empire and in the spiritual one - is a continuation of Kievan Rus, where Kiev clergy plays a significant role. Both concepts were actively developing in future and had some mutual influence; also they greatly influenced the political life. (shrink)

The article is devoted to the analysis of representations of the state which were part of the philosophical concept of the famous Ukrainian church leader, educator, philologist Yepyfanii Slavynetskyi. It was found that the historical and cultural context in which these views were formed, included deep familiarity with European philosophy, the theory of the state developed by the Orthodox intellectuals of Kyiv-Mohyla Collegium, the political struggle for the incipience of early modern Ukrainian nation in the second half of the XVII (...) century. Noted significant influence of the philosophy of E. Slavynetskyi on the religious, cultural and educational processes in Muscovy in era of Patriarch Nikon's reforms. The presence of the Patriarch own notions of state authority actively influence on the formation of the E. Slavinetsky's concept too. It is noted that E. Slavynetskyi's statesmanship theory was based on the developed by the Ukrainian Orthodox intellectuals of the end of XVI - first half XVII theory of the ideal state, which in the second half of the XVII century actively evolved due to the political union of the The Cossack Hetmanate and Moscow. Accordingly, E. Slavynetskyi recognized people's right to political activity and state power, the church was considered as a leader of social progress, obligement of the lord to care for the public good. It was found that the concept of E. Slavynetskyi's state have many elements of European theories of enlightened absolutism. Yes, he acknowledges that the foundation of the state is public good and providing the best way for implementation this good - monarchy, insisted on the absolute power of the monarch. The relationship between the church and secular authorities philosopher solves unambiguously in favor of a secular, acknowledging the king's right to decide all important issues of church life. It is noted that the main reason for the evolution of such ideas was given the fact of The Cossack Hetmanate's political union with Russia as the civilizational mission to improve the capacity of the Orthodox culture and building a just state. This theory has become its logical conclusion later in the XVIII century in F. Prokopovich's philosophical views and political activities. (shrink)