Problems of agrarian history of the carpathian regionat the end of the XVIII - the middle of the XIX century in contemporary ukrainian historiography

Abstract

The purpose of the research is to analyze and generalize the views of modern Ukrainian scientists on the problems of agrarian relationsdevelopment of the Carpathian regionpopulation at the end of the XVIII – the first half of the XIX century. The methodology of the research is based on the principles of consistency, reliability, historicism, logic. General scientific (analysis, synthesis, generalization) and specifically historical (historically genetic, historically typological, historically system) methods are used in the article. Scientific novelty. For the first time it was made an analysis of the latest scientific research devoted to the problems of agrarian history of the Carpathian region of the late XVIII – the first half of the XIX century, presented not only by historians, but also by specialists from other branches of science: economists, geographers, and lawyers. Conclusions. Having analyzed the works of contemporary Ukrainian historiography representatives, which cover issues of the evolution and transformation of agrarian relations in the Carpathian region at the end of the XVIII– the first half of the XIX century, it can be argued that the issues of the Rusyn sagrarian history of the reforms period of Maria Theresaand Joseph II and themes of the serfdom abolition in 1848 remain extremely relevant among the researchers. Modern Ukrainian historians, while outlining the region of research, mostly use the term «Transcarpathia», and only some of them go beyond the terminology developed by Soviet historiography. At the same time, Ukrainian scientists operate statistical data extremely full, publishing figures highlighting land ownership issues, categories of lands and peasants in a defined period. In the vast majority of works, the colonial status of the region is emphasized, and the brake factor for the development of the Carpathian region is called feudal land tenure, which prevented the wealth growth of the bulk of the Rusyns. This approach reflects the contribution of Soviet historiography to this topicin some way, but growing interest in the history of wealthy Rusyn peasants suggests finding new foundations for research and re-evaluating scientific knowledge.