Багро, Сергій2017-02-222017-02-222016Багро С. О. Слово vs. поняття : способи позначення Батьківщини в козацькій спільноті (друга половина XVII - перша половина XVIII ст.) / Багро С. О // Наукові записки НаУКМА. Історичні науки. - 2016. - Т. 182. - С. 3-8.https://ekmair.ukma.edu.ua/handle/123456789/10976Due to Frank Sysyn S observations, in historiography the concept of fatherland in the Cossack society became strongly associated with the word ‘otchyzna’. However, the historical semantics distinguishes the notions of the signifier and the signified. There has not been any attempt in recent historiography that takes into account a possibility that this word could have been marked by different words or, vice versa, that one word could have meant different concepts. This inattention made the historical research much poorer and narrowed the range of interpretations. In the second half of the 17th century, the political rhetoric of Zaporizhian Host could be conducted not only in Ruthenian but also in Polish and Latin. Thus, it testifies to the parallel usage of the words ‘ojczyzna ’ and ‘patria’. Many texts of the Cossack origin have been preserved only in copies. Besides, there is a probability that the scribes replaced some words with synonymic ones. Since there was no notion of the fatherland in the Mus- covitic political culture, mutually interchangeable terms ‘otchizna ’ or ‘otchina’, which meant the property heritage, came to be used as such in re-written texts. The Muscovitian clerks seem to notice no difference between these words while adjusting the categories of ‘other ’ cultures to their ‘own’. It is also possible that the Cossack rhetoric practices ran in such a way as well. The Cossack chancery, if needed, could have used even the church-Slavonic lexemes. In particular, the word ‘otechestvo ’ with its variant ‘otchestvo ’ entered the political discourse since the 10th century as a translation of the Greek word ‘пaтp^д’. After Peter the Great’s reforms, with the ideological help of the church educated elite from Kyiv, the concept of fatherland gradually integrated into ‘Greatrussian ’political discourse. In the imperial environment, the word ‘otechestvo ’ eventually became the main marker for the fatherland. On the other hand, the word ‘otchina ’preserved its meaning ofthe property heritage. Hence, its usage as a signifier for Cossackfatherland in the rewritten texts of the 17th century gradually lost its regularity and required an additional explanation or replacement. Except the proposed direct designations, the concept of fatherland could have been marked by the names of the objects which were signified. These were ‘Rzecz Pospolita’, ‘Ukraine’ or ‘Lesser Russia’. Also the concept of fatherland could have interlaced with the concepts like ‘storona’ (side, country), ‘zemlia’ (land), ‘brother’s union’ or ‘sojedinienie ’ (confederacy). Nevertheless, these cannot be fully equated with fatherland.У статті проаналізовано поняття батьківщини в козацькій спільноті, яке позначали кількома різними словами. Перевагу надавали слову "отчизна", а у переписах московських канцеляристів його могли змінювати на слово "отчина". Наголошено, що після петровських реформ в імперському дискурсі найуживанішим у значенні ціннісної категорії стало слово «отечество». Разом з тим, козацькі канцеляристи часто послуговувалися польською та латинською мовами, тож слова "раМа" і "ojczyzna" також з’являлися в їхніх текстах.ukбатьківщинасловопоняттяпоняттяУкраїнаМалоросіяспільнотастаттяfatherlandwordwordconceptUkraineLesser RussiacommunityArticle