Abstract. The "History of the Rus" was considered as a monument of Ukrainian political and legal thought. It is discussed as a significant phenomenon from the point of view of Ukrainian national genesis and state-legal tradition. The own understanding of the used terminology is expressed.
It is emphasized that at the turn of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century. in the Russian-imperial political and legal realities, Ukrainian natiogenesis as the idea of national statehood developed in general along two trends: the need to preserve the Cossack state-legal tradition and the need to take into account new social and political realities. It is emphasized that the first trend in the "History of the Rus" is evidenced in the most important provisions of its political and legal ideas. It was established that all of them were built on the foundations of the core foundation of the Cossack state-legal tradition of the freedoms of the selected rights, which lived in the historical memory of the people and awakened freedom-loving thoughts and aspirations of Ukrainians. It is motivated by the fact that "History of the Rus" despite glorifying the Cossacks, was not devoid of the trends of the new modern period. As an example, the author's use of appropriate terminology is given.
It is argued that the "History of the Rus" clearly testified to the tendency to take into account the new social and political realities that developed in the Ukrainian lands of the Russian Empire. It is emphasized that it manifested itself most fully in the space of the concept of Ukraine as Little Russia. It was established that the specified concept had already established itself in the then Russian Ukraine as a special form of historical and political consciousness and created a special identity. It has been proven that a vivid manifestation of this tendency was the phenomenon of the so-called dual loyalty.
In conclusion, it was emphasized that "History of the Rus" is in many ways a transitional document. It is proposed to consider it as a work in which one of the negative features of the Ukrainian mentality - an excessive tendency to compromise and conformism - is reflected, albeit indirectly, for the first time. It was noted that this phenomenon accompanied Ukrainians actually since the establishment of both empires in Ukraine in the last quarter of the 18th century, and then during the Soviet era until the end of the 20th century. and not until today. The belief is expressed that dual loyalty and identity are characteristic of any empire (authoritarian state), and therefore were forced features of social conditions for Ukrainians, in particular, in both empires as well as in the later Soviet one.
1.Terlyuk I. (2022). Ukrayinska derzhavnist: formuvannya nacionalnoyi derzhavno-pravovoyi tradiciyi. Druga polovina XVI – pochatok ХХ st. [Monografiya]. Lviv : TzOV «Galicka vidavnicha spilka», 480 p.
2.Terlyuk I.Ya. (2014). Formuvannya i rozvitok u vitchiznyanij politiko-pravovij dumci koncepciyi Ukrayini yak Malorosiyi (do vitokiv rosijskih imperskih ideologem). Visnik Nacionalnogo universitetu «Lvivska politehnika». Zbirnik naukovih prac. № 782. Yuridichni nauki. Lviv : Vidavnictvo Lvivskoyi politehniki, P. 141–146.
3.Kogut 3. (1996). Rosijskij centralizm i ukrayinska avtonomiya. Likvidaciya Getmanshini 1760 1830. K.: Osnovi, 317 p.
4.Shevchuk V.O. (2005). Muza Roksolanska: Ukrayinska literatura XVIXVIII stolit: U 2 kn. Kniga druga: Rozvinene baroko. Piznye baroko. K.: Libid, 728 p.
5.Plohij S. (2013). Kozackij mif. Istoriya ta naciyetvorennya v epohu imperij / avtoriz. per. z angl. M. Klimchuka. K.: Laurus, 440 s.
6.Pricak O. (1993). She raz pro soyuz Bogdana Hmelnickogo z Turechchinoyu. Ukrayinskij arheografichnij shorichnik. Kiyiv, Vip. 2. P. 177192.
7.Shevchuk V. (1991). Nerozgadani tayemnici «Istoriyi Rusiv». Istoriya Rusiv / Per. I. Dracha. K.: Rad. pismennik,P. 528.
8.Smolij V.A., Stepankov V.S. (1997). Ukrayinska derzhavna ideya XVII – XVIII stolit: problemi formuvannya, evolyuciyi, realizaciyi. K.: Vidavnichij dim "Alternativi", 368 p.
9.Istoriya Rusiv (1991). / Per. I. Dracha; vstupna stattya V. Shevchuka. K.: Rad. pismennik, 318 p.
10.Saltovskij O. (2002). Koncepciyi ukrayinskoyi derzhavnosti v istoriyi vitchiznyanoyi politichnoyi dumki (vid vitokiv do pochatku ХХ stolittya). K.: Vid. PARAPAN, 396 p.
11.Yakovenko N. (1997). Getmanska Ukrayina pid kolesami prosvitnickih idealiv. Suchasnist. № 9. P. 145149.
12.Vengerska V. (2011). Intelektuali v ХІХ st.: fenomen mnozhinnih loyalnostej. Inteligenciya i vlada. Seriya : Istoriya. Vip. 21. P. 1727.
13.Kravchenko V. (2020). Provincijni poshuki kolektivnoyi identichnosti: vipadok u Slobidskij Ukrayini.Imperski identichnosti v ukrayinskij istoriyi XVIII – pershoyi polovini ХІХ st. / Kolektivna monografiya za red. V. Adadurova i V. Sklokina. Lviv: Vid-vo UKU, P. 115168.
14.Pashuk V. (2016). Cherez prosvitu do modernoyi naciyi: tovaristvo «Prosvita» ta polski prosvitni organizaciyi Galichini. Proekt «Ukrayina». Avstrijska Galichina / avt.-uporyad. M.R. Litvin. Harkiv: Folio, P. 146160.
15.Gyrych I. (2011). Konceptualni problemi istoriyi Ukrayini. Ternopil: Navchalna kniga «Bogdan», 224 p.