Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

The Battle of Konotop 1659

 | 
Oleg Rumyantsev
, 
Giovanna Brogi Bercoff

«In libertate nati sumus»: the life strategies of Ukrainian szlachta and orthodox hierarchs on the eve and in the first decade of the Cossack wars (1638-1658)

Natalia Yakovenko

Texte intégral

  • 1 Arkhiv Jugo-Zapadnoj Rossii, izdavaemyj Vremennoj komissiej dlja razbora drevnikh aktov [ further m (...)
  • 2 Zerov M., Literaturna pozytsija M. Staryts’koho (v dvadtsjat’ p’jati rokovyny smerti), in: idem, Uk (...)
  • 3 Hrushevs’kyj M., Istorija Ukraïny-Rusy. Pochatky Khmel’nychchyny (1638-1648), t. VIII, ch. 2 Kyïv, (...)
  • 4 Ibid., 3.

1The instructions of the Lutsk dietine for its delegates at the 1645 Diet open with a glorification of peace: «Miedzy Bozkiemi dobrodzieystwy pokóy iest naywyssze dobrodzieystwo […]. gdy tedy świata chrześciańskiego wszystkie symmetriae ardent bello, w samey tylko oyczyznie naszey złoty kwitnie pokóy...»1 [Peace is the highest of all divine graces […] While all the Christian world symmetriae ardent bello, only in our sweet fatherland does golden peace flourish]. The Volhynian szlachta referred to the Thirty Years’ War, but the metaphor of «golden peace», so often quoted by their contemporaries, soon took on a new meaning: it came to signify the decade between 1638, when the Polish – Lithuanian Commonwealth successfully suppressed the Cossack revolts, and 1648, which marked the outbreak of the Cossack uprising. In Ukrainian historic memory, this decade is conceptualized not as one of «golden peace», but rather as a lull before the storm, rife with internal tensions. This view was formed not only by historiographic writings, but also by fiction: suffice it to mention the classical novel Before the Storm by Mykhajlo Staryts’kyj (1894), the writer who came to be regarded by later critics as an icon «of the whole Ukrainian cultural and social movement»2. In historical writings, meanwhile, this concept was immortalized by Mykhajlo hrushevs’kyj in his History of Ukraine-Rus’: «golden peace» is mentioned in the title of the chapter in quotation marks3, whereas the preface further stresses that the decade described was but an «intermission», «a short pause in the… inevitable unraveling of the historical process»4.

  • 5 Volumina Legum. Przedruk zbioru praw staraniem xx. Pijarów w Warszawie, od roku 1732 roku 1782 wyda (...)
  • 6 Hrushevs’kyj M., Istorija Ukraïny-Rusy, t. VIII, ch. 2: 129
  • 7 See also: Pritsak O., Istoriosofija Mykhajla Hrushevs’koho, in: hrushevs’kyj M., Istorija Ukraïny-R (...)
  • 8 Hrushevs’kyj M., Istorija Ukraïny-Rusy, t. VIII, ch. 2: 5-6.
  • 9 Ibid., 43-50, 83-112.
  • 10 Ibid., 51.

2Hrushevs’kyj was right, as far as the Cossacks were concerned. Having been left weakened and reeling after the Diet constitution «Ordynacyja Wojska Zaporowskiego regestrowego w służbie Rzeczypospolitej będącego»5 (1638), the Cossacks perceived this decade as a mere pause in their fight for self-assertion. However, hrushevskyj’s further claim that the decade marked the maturing of «the one indivisible feeling of national bondage» for «the whole Rus’ nation»6 requires more comment. It is widely known that hrushevs’kyj viewed only the lower strata of society as the «nation», since, for him, they were opposed to the «de-nationalized» szlachta and preserved Ukrainian ethnicity7. In a particularly caustic remark, hrushevs’kyj states that szlachta remained «deaf and dumb» throughout the pre-war decade, and cared only for the «uninterrupted continuance of the blessed calm»8. While conscientiously documenting the rapid acceleration of the pace of life during the late 1630s and throughout the 1640s (when the steppe borderlands were mastered, religious life became livelier and education developed)9, he fails to mention that these changes were instigated by this very same «deaf and dumb» szlachta; on the contrary, he keeps emphasizing that the scope of the changes could not possibly have been significant since «they could not have driven the people to revolt»10.

3Of course, the szlachta had no intention of instigating further revolts. Moreover, during the «golden peace», when the State was not torn by internal or external wars, the territories that soon became the epicentre of the Cossack rebellion saw the rise of a distinct «Ruthenian patriotism», described later on in this article. Meanwhile, the surprisingly short period between the beginning of the war and the Battle of Konotop (1659), which eradicated all hope of a return to the world of the past, encompassed numerous phenomena concomitant to social cataclysms, such as political and social transformations and maneuverings, the polarization of views, survival-related adaptations, etc. Such fluctuations can obviously not be described in this short article, so my notes will by necessity remain sketchy. First, I will try to outline briefly the worldviews and priorities of the szlachta and church hierarchs on the eve of war; second, I will outline the strategies for adapting to the new situation, as well as the renewed hopes of a return to the status quo after the Treaty of hadjach; third, and last, I will illustrate the rifts between the szlachta and the church hierarchs: they began with the Treaty of hadjach and were consolidated by the subsequent war and political chaos.

The Decade of Optimism

  • 11 Kulakovs’kyj P., Chernihovo-Sivershchyna u skladi Rechi Pospolytoï, 1618-1648, Kyïv, Tempora, 2006: (...)
  • 12 Krykun M., Kil’kist’i struktura poselen’Bratslavs’koho vojevodstva v pershij polovyni xvii stolittj (...)

4In 1647, the outlook of the szlachta and the Orthodox church hierarchs of the Ukrainian palatinates of Bratslav, Volhynia, Kyiv and Chernihiv (which were soon to become battlefields and then Cossack territories) could be described as «brimming with optimism». Recently published works on the economic and public life of the region testify to that fact. For example, Petro Kulakovs’kyj resorts to a range of different sources in order to outline the great scope of economic changes («modernization», as the author puts it) in the Chernihiv-Sivers’k area; this had once been the backwoods of Muscovy but it returned to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1618 and became the Chernihiv palatinate in 1635. Kulakovs’kyj’s treatise documents the rapid colonization of these territories, the rise in the urban population, improvements in economic infrastructure and developments in communication networks, etc.11. Similar advancements in former loca deserta reclaimed at the steppe frontiers of Bratslavshchyna are documented in the monograph by Mykola Krykun, which lists 50 urban settlements first mentioned in sources at the end of the 1630s12.

  • 13 Litwin h., Równi do równych. Kijowska reprezentacja sejmowa, 1569-1648. Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Dig, (...)
  • 14 Mazur K., W stronę integracji z Koroną. Sejmiki Wołynia i Ukrainy w latach 1569-1648, Warszawa, Wyd (...)

5The particular characteristics of the events connected to the public dietines of these territories are no less telling. For example, henryk Litwin has thoroughly analyzed the composition of dietine delegates from the Kyiv palatinate and the dynamics by which this was determined: he came to the conclusion that during the second quarter of the 17th C. affluent local groups became the true leaders and «masters», as he put it, of the Kyivan szlachta corporation, keeping their political decisions relatively independent with respect to the agenda of the magnates13. Karol Mazur’s observations on Volhynian dietine life, where local priorities took precedence as early as the end of the 16th C., led to similar conclusions, which are supported by a number of occurrences. These include protests against the documents from the Royal Chancellery being sent to Volhynia in Latin or Polish rather than in «Ruthenian»; vehement defences of the so-called «Volhynian right», i. e. use of the Lithuanian Statute; protection of the «greek faith» against the church union; widespread indignation at the 1638 Diet’s attempt to abolish princely titles, which the szlachta perceived as a symbol of the singularity of the Ukrainian palatinates incorporated into the Polish Crown in 156914.

  • 15 Their names are listed in: ibid., 417-419.
  • 16 Krykun M., Jak vidbuvsja peredsejmovyj sejmyk Bratslavs’koho vojevodstva v 1634 rotsi, in idem, Bra (...)
  • 17 Litwin h., Równi do równych: 151.
  • 18 Kulakovs’kyj P., Chernihovo-Sivershchyna u skladi Rechi Pospolytoï: 165.
  • 19 Litwin h., Równi do równych: 133
  • 20 Quoted after: Lypyns’kyj V., Uchast’ shljakhty u velykomu ukraïns’komu povstanni pid provodom het’m (...)

6It is worth noting that corporate solidarity was more important to representatives of local communities than any denominational differences. This is illustrated by the breakdown of the figures among the 32 delegates that represented Volhynia at the Diets of 1638-1647 (some repeatedly): Orthodox Christians and Catholics were almost equally represented (10 and 11 respectively)15, followed by 5 Protestants and 6 people of unclear denomination. At the 1634 dietine of the Bratslav palatinate, as one contemporary source remarked, «the votes were counted by bullets» because of the conflict between prince Stefan Chetvertyns’kyj (Orthodox) and the local starosta Adam Kalinowski (Catholic): the «parties» of both leaders featured members of both denominations16. The same trends were recorded at the Kyiv dietines of the late 1630s-1640s: the local Catholic «party» was headed by palatine Janusz Tyszkiewicz, whereas his main opponent in the battle for power, the Antitrinitarian Jurij Nemyrych, garnered the sympathy not only of numerous Kyiv Protestants, but also of Orthodox locals17. Neither did denominational differences stand in the way of szlachta solidarity in the Chernihiv palatinate, where Petro Kulakovs’kyj estimated that at least half of the landlords were Orthodox Christians from Ukrainian palatinates18. However, when they cared more about the prestige of their «small fatherland» than a fight for leadership, Catholic converts were guided by their «Ruthenian» sensibility first and foremost. For example, in autumn 1647, such Kyiv Ruthenian nobles as Oleksandr and Remihijan Jel’ts (who converted to Catholicism in 1632 and before 1647 respectively) solicited the general of the Society of Jesus Vincenzo Carafa to turn the Jesuit residence founded by Oleksandr in Ksaveriv (near Ovruch) in 1635 into an institute of higher education: «aby w tych państwach ruskich te altiora studia młodzi naszej ruskiej tłumaczył»19 [in order to elucidate those altiora studia to our Ruthenian youths]. It should also be noted that the outbreak of the Cossack uprising reinforced this sense of solidarity regardless of the denominations: in the decision of the Kyiv dietine of December 25, 1648, the szlachta of various denominations pledged to «pokój między sobą zachować, a dla różnej wiary greckiej i rzymskiej krwi nie rozlewać... jako spólni i zgodni bracia...»20 [Preserve the peace between us and refrain from spilling blood for greek or Roman faith… as brothers of unity and accord…].

  • 21 Sysyn F. E., Regionalism and Political Thought in Seventeen-Century Ukraine: The Nobility’s Grievan (...)
  • 22 Kulakovs’kyj P., Chernihovo-Sivershchyna u skladi Rechi Pospolytoï: 146-147.
  • 23 Sysyn F. E., Regionalism and Political Thought in Seventeen-Century Ukraine: 173

7Frank Sysyn posits that local solidarity became more broadly regional around 1635, when the Chernihiv palatinate was granted the same administrative and legal specificities confirmed by the Union of Lublin (1569) for the Volhynian and Kyivan palatinates, then newly-incorporated into the Crown21. This assumption is supported by the fact that the dietine delegates of Chernihiv-Sivershchyna started to coordinate their politics with the Volhynians as early as the 1640s: this means that, like the Kyivans and Bratslavans, they started to consider the Volhynian dietine as the «leading» dietine for the whole region22. The four palatinates formed on the eastern borders of the State differed from the rest of the kingdom not only in terms of their rights and administrative organization, but also ethnically and denominationally; according to Sysyn, this led to a blend of regional («Ruthenian») patriotism, the realization of cultural otherness and ‘participation’ in the heritage of the «ancient Ruthenian nation»23.

  • 24 An analysis of the earliest work of this kind, Camoenae Borysthenides, can be found in: Jakovenko N (...)
  • 25 [Okolscii, Simonis], Orbis Polonus… in quo antiqua Sarmatarum gentilitia… specificantur et relucent(...)
  • 26 For in-depth analysis of these legends, see: Jakovenko N., Vnesok heral’dyky u tvorennja «terytoriï (...)
  • 27 See also: Frick D. A., Meletij Smotryc’kyj, Cambridge (Mass.), 1995: 247-260.
  • 28 [Okolscii, Simonis], Russia florida rosis et liliis, hoc est sanguine, praedicatione, religione et (...)
  • 29 Ibid., 62, 71.

8Two factors fostered the creation of the szlachta’s «historic memory», in which the «Ruthenian» past supplanted their own history. On the one hand, there was a strong influence of secular and ecclesiastical writings that rapidly developed in the 1620s-30s and narrated «the complete history» of Rus’, its rulers and its church, with Kyiv as its capital24. On the other hand, the deeds of rulers and the history of the state had to be supplemented with more «personalized» historical accounts, which elevated the average szlachta into lofty historical plots and made the past of Rus’emotionally relevant. I think that the armorial written by the Dominican monk Szymon Okolski (1641-1645) perfectly fulfilled this function25: it brought its readers closer to Ruthenian history, which became a set of Kyiv, Volhynian and Bratslav armorial legends, most of which were «tied» to the Rus’heritage26. This undermines the traditional assumption that predominance of Rus’motifs in local historical conscience was primarily linked to the defence of the Orthodox Church. Without going any further into this issue, which after all is only tangentially related to the topic under consideration, I would like to mention that «Ruthenian patriotism» was shared likewise by Ruthenian Uniates (such as Meletij Smotryts’kyj27), Ruthenian Protestants (such as Jurij Nemyrych, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Rus’, established in 1658), and Ruthenian Catholics (such as the Dominican monk Jan Dombrowski, who wrote the first historical poem glorifying Kyiv, Camoenae Borysthenides). As to Szymon Okolski, his «Ruthenian patriotism» became apparent not only in his armorial, but also in the subsequent Russia florida28, where the tale of the Dominican Ruthenian province is supplemented by data on the ancient Ruthenian past; to prove his point, he also liberally quotes the glorification of the princes from the above-mentioned poem by Dombrowski29.

  • 30 The events mentioned above are the Diet debates of 1638-1641 on the proposal to do away with prince (...)
  • 31 Quoted after appendices to the article by Frank Sysyn: Regionalism and Political Thought in Sevente (...)

9The Volhynian politician Adam Kysil, in his glorious votum at the Diet of 1641, where the use of princely titles was harshly debated (since Crown szlachta interpreted them as an insult to the ideal of szlachta equality, where as Kyiv and Volhynian szlachta perceived them as a symbol of their singularity30), draws a clear distinction between the «Ruthenian» and Polish nations; the former term refers only to the szlachta of the territories incorporated under the Crown through the Union of Lublin: «Primum, że przodkowie nasi Sarmatae Rossi do w. m., do Sarmatas Polonos libere accesserunt, cum suis diis penatibus przynieśli prowincje... […] A my non ad regionem, sed cum regione, non ad religionem, sed cum religione, nie do tytułów i honorów, ale z tytułami i honorami accessimus do tej spólnej ojczyzny naszej»31 [Primum, our ancestors Sarmatae Rossi brought the provinces to You, my gracious Lords, to Sarmatas Polonos libere accesserunt, cum suis diis penatibus […] And we non ad regionem, sed cum regione, non ad religionem, sed cum religione, not to titles and honours, but with them accessimus to our common fatherland].

  • 32 For analysis of this work as a type of «program» for Kyïv ecclesiastical evolution inhylan and pre- (...)
  • 33 Pamjatniki polemicheskoj literatury v Zapadnoj Rusi, Kn 1, SPb, 1878, Stb. 1110 («istoricheskaja bi (...)
  • 34 Quoted after: Arkhiv JuZR, ch. 1, t. 7, Kiev, 1887: 514
  • 35 Published in: Dokumenty, objasnjajushchie istoriju Zapadno-russkogo kraja i ego otnoshenie Rossii i (...)
  • 36 Reviewed in: Chynczewska-hennel T., «Do praw i przywilejów swoich dawnych». jako argument w polemic (...)
  • 37 Quoted after: Arkhiv JuZR, ch. 1, t. 7: 547
  • 38 Arkhiv JuZR, ch. 2, t. 1: 203.
  • 39 Ibid., 207.

10The concept of a voluntary union between «Ruthenian Sarmates» and their Polish counterparts («not in the country, but with the country, not in faith, but with faith»), around which the votum was centered, was not invented by Kysil’. It was first voiced by the Kyiv hieromonk Zakharija Kopystens’kyj in his 1621 treatise Palinode, or The Book of Defence32: to prove the legality of the unsanctioned restoration of the Orthodox hierarchy in 1620, he stresses that the rights and privileges of the Kyiv Orthodox metropolitan were acknowledged by the Polish kings when «Ruthenian princes were voluntarily joining the Polish Crown according to the conditions of certain pacts»33. Since those who took part in further polemics saw the world through the lenses of the szlachta democracy, the aforementioned «Ruthenian princes» came to be viewed as the «Ruthenian nation», that is, as the szlachta that voluntarily joined the Crown on condition that its rights would be acknowledged. In his anonymously published treatise Justifikacia niewinności (1623), Meletij Smotryts’kyj described this process as follows: «Z tą taką wolnością z wolnymi narodami Polskim i Litewskim Ruski naród złączył się w jedno ciało, o jedne się głowę spoił i oparł»34 [The Ruthenian nation freely united into one body, crowned and joined by one head, with the Polish and Lithuanian nations] (this same passage almost verbatim can also be found in «Supplicacja», offered to the Diet by Orthodox szlachta in 1623; here, the «Ruthenian nation» is described as «the third nation» of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth35). Amongst the then-popular recitals of the rights that the Orthodox Church was unfairly deprived of36, it is worth mentioning the Synopsis, albo Krótkie spisanie praw (Vilno, 1632), which quotes the incorporation privilege (1569) in order to prove that the Union of Lublin was the voluntary union of «rownych do rownych, wolnych do wolnych»37 [equals with equals, the free with the free]. In that same year the Lutsk dietine, held on the eve of the Election Diet, resolved to refrain from electing a new king until «we, the Ruthenian nation… without exceptions» (totaliter) have all our rights reinstated, as set out in the 1569 privilege38 (note also that the marshal of the dietine that approved such a drastic resolution was Andrzej Firlej, himself a Polish Protestant39).

11After that, the Lublin privilege was quoted in most dietine instructions on various occasions; this shows that by the 1640s the idea of the «third nation» in the Commonwealth of Two Nations, which had first surfaced twenty years earlier, had grown strong and popular both amongst the ethnically Ruthenian szlachta and their Polish «brothers» and neighbours, regardless of their denominations.

  • 40 Melnyk M., Spór o zbawienie. Zagadnienia soteriologiczne w świetle prawosławnych projek tów unijnyc (...)
  • 41 The planned date of the council is mentioned in the diary of Stanislaw Oświęcim: Oświęcim S., Dyary (...)

12The idea of «the third nation» – albeit in a somewhat different interpretation – had also spread amongst church hierarchs, who, after all, were szlachta themselves. This gave rise to numerous endeavors, started in the 1620s, to reunite Orthodox and Uniate Church hierarchs and, possibly, to create a united Ruthenian (Kyivan) Patriarchate. Such initiatives were not dampened by the fiasco of the Lviv unificatory council of 1629: the second attempt was made in 1635-1636, when Petro Mohyla was a metropolitan; however, it was impeded by interference from the Holy See40. The last wave of negotiations came in 1642-1646; however, it was delayed by the sudden death of Petro Mohyla, whereas the council for unification set for 16 July, 164841 was interrupted by the outbreak of the Cossack uprising.

  • 42 Cossack actions against any such understanding are covered in: Plokhy S., The Cossacks and Religion (...)
  • 43 See: hodana T., Między królem a carem. Moskwa w oczach prawosławnych Rusinów – obywateli Rzeczyposp (...)
  • 44 See Mohyla’s dedication to Tomasz Zamoyski in Tsvitna Triod’ (1631): Titov Khv., dlja knyzhnoï spra (...)
  • 45 For more information on «elaborations» of Chetwertenskyj’s genealogy as supposed to Kyivan Rus’prin (...)
  • 46 See also: Jakovenko N., Kyïv pid shatrom Sventol’dychiv (mohyljans’kyj panehiryk Tentoria venienti (...)

13In fact, the Cossacks were the main opponents to the Orthodox hierarchs’attempts to enter into talks with their Uniate counterparts42. Therefore, it is no wonder that the leaders of the Orthodox Church came to view their unpredictable defenders with growing unease. In fact, they no longer relied on Cossack sabers for their protection after the Kyivan Orthodox metropolitanate was legally re-established, when Petro Mohyla was reinstated in his rights by the King’s diploma of 1633. The «anti-Cossack course», started by Mohyla himself, can be traced through many works published in the Cave monastery during his life. Such works often criticize «rebels from Zaporizhia» and glorify the heroes who courageously suppressed the «Cossack rebellions». Among the most outstanding works we may recall the Patericon by Syl’vestr Kosov (1635), Teratourghema by Afanasij Kal’nofojs’kyj (1638), the funerary sermon on the death of Illja Chetvertens’kyj by Ihnatij Starushych (1641), the panegyric to Adam Kysil’by Teodozij Bajevs’kyj (1646), some polemical notes in the prefaces to ecclesiastical works, and others. Having changed their strategic guidelines, Kyivan hierarchs resorted to the usual church tactics of securing the support and patronage of «important people». For Petro Mohyla, who was the heir of Moldavian rulers, these «important people» included King Władysław IV43, the Crown Chancellor Tomasz Zamoyski44, the princes Chetvertens’kyj45, senator Adam Kysil’46, and Volhynian and Kyiv nobles rather than Cossack leaders.

  • 47 Plokhyj S., Papstvo i Ukraina: 155.
  • 48 Ševčenko I., The Many Worlds of Peter Mohyla, «harvard Ukrainian Studies», 1984, vol. 8, n. 1-2: 9.

14After the death of Petro Mohyla, Syl’vestr Kosov became the Kyivan metropolitan in February 1647. He actively implemented Mohyla’s reforms; the Holy See deemed it politically advantageous to carry on further negotiations for a possible Orthodox-Uniate understanding47. After the church stabilized there were several reasons for an optimistic outlook for the future: the collegium that Mohyla had founded on the Jesuit model was flourishing, publishing was blossoming and, thanks to liturgical reforms, discipline was established in the life of the church. As Ihor Shevchenko metaphorically put it, «spirits were uplifted, and minds were expanding»48. However, not a year had passed before the war destroyed all hopes of uniting «Rus’ with Rus’» in one «Ruthenian nation of greek faith».

In the Turmoil of War

  • 49 Pamiętniki Samuela i Bogusława Maskiewiczów (wiek XVII), opr. A. Sajkowski, Wrocław: Zakład imienia (...)

15The Cossack uprising came as an unexpected blow. Though military leaders may have noticed warning signs, it came as a surprise even to prince Jarema Wiśniowiecki, an altogether well-informed politician. The prince failed to pay heed to the note he received on February 15, drawing his attention to the fact that «Chmielnicki jakiś zebrawszy trochę hultajstwa z Zaporoża spędził pułk korsuński» [having gathered some ruffians in Zaporizhia, Khmel’nyts’kyj took over the Korsun’ regiment]; he spent March and April in Lubny and it was not until late April that he sent a servant to reconnoiter at the hetman’s headquarters on the Dnipro’s right bank49. The szlachta of Kyiv, Bratslav, Chernihiv and Volhynia, shocked by the news of the defeat of the Crown forces in late May 1648 and the ensuing chaos, turned en masse to flee the war-torn region; their flight gave origin to frightening rumors and apocalyptic expectations. However, this shock would soon wear off, as shocks do. Life demanded adaptation to the changing circumstances, and the first strategies of adaptation became apparent in 1648.

  • 50 Maiores illustrissimorum principum Korybut Wiszniewiecciorum in suo nepote... Ieremia Korybut Wiszn (...)
  • 51 «Effusus populus, tota plebs witała go w polu, i Academia oracyami i acclamacyami, Moijsem, servato (...)

16The Kyiv Orthodox hierarchs provide remarkable examples of political flexibility. On the eve of the uprising, on May 1, 1648, when there were still hopes that this Cossack revolt would be suppressed as efficiently as the previous ones, the Cave monastery press published a panegyric for Jeremi Wiśniowiecki (the most powerful magnate in Dnipro Ukraine) who was expected to pass through Kyiv50. Facing the danger which appeared evident already in February-March (and which was well-known in Kyiv), the Kyivan poets tried to prove their loyalty not only with the text, but also with an etching predicting Jeremi’s victory over the rebels: amongst the enemies crushed by «Korybut»’s chariot, in the foreground, there is a Cossack. Not a year would pass before these very same professors of the Kyiv-Mohyla collegium would greet the triumphant entry of Bohdan Khmel’nyts’kyj into Kyiv on January 2, 1649 with «orations and acclamations», calling him «Moses, the savior and liberator of his people from Polish bondage»51.

  • 52 For depictions of this period in Kosov-Khmel’nyts’kyj relationship, see: Plokhy S., The Cossacks an (...)
  • 53 Ibid., 257-260.
  • 54 Khmel’nyts’kyj had issues 6 such universals as early as in 1648; later on, their number varied from (...)

17However, such «liberation from Polish bondage» brought Kyivan hierarchs more trouble than good. Metropolitan Syl’vestr Kosov showed forced loyalty to the new Cossack rulers, but in his 1651 letter to the hetman of Lithuania, Janusz Radzywill stated that he had spent 4 years in fear of the Cossacks52. The situation became even more complicated after Khmel’nyts’kyj swore allegiance to the Muscovite czar with the Treaty of Perejaslav (1654). Kyivan hierarchs at first refused to swear the concomitant oath, but were soon forced to do so; the czar, however, issued the deed acknowledging the status of the Kyivan metropolitanate only later, at Khmel’nyts’kyj’s insistence: this allowed the latter to gain patronage over the church (which formerly belonged to the king) in the Cossack-controlled territories53. The clergy, however, had de facto acknowledged this patronage ever since the outbreak of the war: fearing looting, they obtained decrees (universal) of protection from the hetman in the form of deeds confirming land ownership for monasteries and granting them properties whose former owners had fled54.

  • 55 Akty, otnosjashchiesja k istorii Juzhnoj i Zapadnoj Rossii, izdannye Arkheograficheskoj komissieju (...)
  • 56 Jakuba Michałowskiego... księga pamiętnicza: 383
  • 57 Lypyns’kyj V., Uchast’shljakhty u velykomy ukraïns’komu povstanni: 571 (index of names: 557-566).
  • 58 Ugody polsko-ukraińskie w XVII wieku. Pol’s’ko-ukraïns’ki uhody v XVII stolitti, Red. i tłum. O. Al (...)

18The szlachta experienced similar upheavals. It is hard to say how many of them were swept up by the first tide of the uprising. The Muscovite envoy grigorij Kunakov reported from Warsaw that the szlachta started arriving at Khmel’nyts’kyj’s headquarters even before the Cossacks had left Zaporizhia; in December 1649 he communicated that Khmel’nyts’kyj’s troops numbered 40,000 Cossacks and 6,000 szlachta55. These figures are tangentially corroborated by Wojciech Miaskowski’s diary of Ukrainian events in late 1648 - early 1649: he noted that many of «our traitors» (meaning the szlachta) joined the Cossack forces, and stressed that szlachta «uchodzą utriusque sexus, panny nawet»56 [leave utriusque sexus, even young ladies]. Sources do not offer an exact estimate of the numbers, but everything points to the fact that they were quite substantial. In the Cossack registry of autumn 1649, Vjacheslav Lypyns’kyj has identified (not always convincingly) 1,500 representatives of 750 szlachta families57. In addition, the amnesty offered to members of the szlachta by the Treaties of Zboriv (1649) and of Bila Tserkva (1651) also testify to the fact that many nobles joined the uprising: «Szlachcie tak religii ruskiej, jako i rzymskiej, którzy podczas zamieszania tego jakimkolwiek sposobem bawili się przy Wojsku Zaporoskim, Jego Królewska Mość z pańskiej swojej łaski przebacza i występek ich pokrywa»58 [his Royal Majesty in his lordly kindness grants pardon and forgiveness to all szlachta of both Ruthenian and Roman faith who had in any way liaised with the Zaporizhia army in those skirmishes].

  • 59 Lypyns’kyj V., Uchast’shljakhty u velykomy ukraïns’komu povstanni: 94.
  • 60 Relacje wojenne z pierwszych lat walk polsko-kozackich powstania Bohdana Chmielnickiego okresu «Ogn (...)
  • 61 Oświęcim S., Dyaryusz, 1643-1651: 344-345 (entry dated July 3, 1651)
  • 62 Arkhiv JuZR, ch. 3, t. 4: 121-122
  • 63 Natsional’no-vyzvol’na vijna v Ukraïni, 1648-1651. Zbirnyk za dokumentamy aktovykh knyh, upor. L. A (...)
  • 64 Natsional’no-vyzvol’na vijna v Ukraïni: 250

19Lypyns’kyj conceptualized szlachta joining the uprising as a final and nationally-motivated decision driven by what he calls a «poczucie narodowej jedności»59 [feeling of national solidarity]. In truth, the situation could not have been so straightforward. Many szlachta that turned to Cossacks in the wake of the Battle of Zhovti Vody (April 15-16, 1648) explained later that they were forced into «Cossack captivity» in order to escape death or Tatar bondage. Whether this was true or not, not a skirmish passed without several szlachta switching allegiance to save their lives. For example, a memoirist notes that in July 1649, each day several soldiers escaped to Khmel’nyts’kyj from the famished Zbarazh fortress, where the royal forces resided60. The opposite happened during the battle of Berestechko in July 1651, which resulted in a disaster for the Cossack army61. In April 1649, that is before the first amnesty, there are mentions of a Volhynian noble who had just come back «from the free Cossacks, whom he had joined in their war efforts»62. After the amnesty, in November 1649, the Cossack colonel of Ovruch Ivan Brujaka was already a deputy of the starosta of Ovruch Vladyslav Nemyrych and a soldier in his regiment; in Polissja in 1650 and 1652, however, he once again headed the Cossack movement63. By 1652, the noble Pavlo Fylypovs’kyj, mentioned in 1648 as a Cossack sotnyk, had settled in his estate, threatening to kill his neighbour and rival as soon as another «war with the Lachy [Poles]» starts64.

  • 65 Na «Trąbę» żołnierska odpowiedź w roku 1648. [S. l., 1648], in: Arma Cosacica: 80.
  • 66 Oświęcenie tępych oczu synów koronnych i W. Ks. Litewskiego w ciemnej chmurze rebeliej schizmatycki (...)
  • 67 Quoted after: Lypyns’kyj V., Ukraïna na perelomi, 1657-1659. Zamitky do istoriï ukraïns’koho derzha (...)
  • 68 See biographical comparisons in: Lypyns’kyj V., Uchast’shljakhty u velykomy ukraïns’komu povstanni: (...)

20This panoply of shifting and changing proves that joining, leaving, or re-joining Cossack forces was not always a matter of «national» choice. After the initial shock, the szlachta grew accustomed to the war and tried to act according to the demands of the moment. Since many of the szlachta were forced to flee the war-torn territories, the moment was not conducive to loyalty to the Polish Crown. In his poetic description of the Battle of Pyljavtsi (September 1648), which was a disaster for the King’s army, an anonymous soldier rhetorically asks, while describing the plight of the «chudych niebożąt» [«famished poor devils»], fugitives like himself: «Czemuż Rzeczpospolita drogi im nie ścielie?»65 [why doesn’t the Commonwealth pave the way for them?]. There was some ground to these complaints: when the szlachta from Kyiv, Bratslav and Chernihiv asked at the Election Diet of autumn 1648 that their families be sheltered in vacant estates on the royal lands, the issue was ignored. The author of a later pamphlet relates that the King said such words about the Belarusian fugitives: «Powiadano, iż wszytkich pozabijano w tym województwie i w tym powiecie – a to jeszcze ich diaboł nie wziął, że mi dokuczają»66 [They say that everybody in that palatinate and that powiat was slaughtered, so why don’t they go to the devil and quit pestering me?]. Adam Kysil’reacted to the indifference of the delegates at the Election Diet by stating that they have no choice but to fend for them selves («nielza jedno o sobie radzić» [one should not care only for his own hide])67. No wonder, therefore, that the szlachta resorted to a variety of ways of dealing with the issue, including joining the Cossacks: by 1649, most colonels of the Zaporizhian host and almost the whole of Khmel’nyts’kyj’s Chancellery were Polish nobles68.

  • 69 Relacje wojenne z pierwszych lat walk polsko-kozackich: 139.
  • 70 Natsional’no-vyzvol’na vijna v Ukraïni: 345.

21However, friends and relatives who found themselves on opposing sides did not break off all ties. The anonymous memoirist of the Siege of Zbarazh notes that a one-day armistice on July 24, 1649 was passed in «rozmowach przyjacielskich» (companionable chatter) between the besieged and their captors. The besieged, having been cut off from sources of information, asked their adversaries about news from home: «O domowe rzeczy pytali się niektórzy, aż za wał wyszedłszy tabakąśmy ich częstowali»69 [Some asked about the goings-on at their home, they went over to the ramparts and treated them with tobacco]. The instruction of the Volhynian dietine for its delegates to the Diet (1655) provides another telling detail: the szlachta demanded that private excursions to the territories controlled by the Zaporizhian host70 should be banned, which means that such outings, as well as the «confidential contacts» mentioned therein, were rather common.

Waiting for the Treaty of Hadjach

  • 71 Relacje wojenne z pierwszych lat walk polsko-kozackich: 139.
  • 72 On opinions of the higher and court elites, see: Dąbrowski J. S., Przed «Potopem». Senatorowie koro (...)
  • 73 Many misconceptions about Jerlicz’s biography, have been discussed and corrected by recent research (...)
  • 74 Jerlicz J., Latopisiec abo Kroyniczka rożnych spraw i dzieiow dawnych i teraznieyszych czasow: 214- (...)
  • 75 Published: harasymchuk V., Materialy do istoriï kozachchyny XVII viku, L’viv, L’vivs’ke viddilennja (...)
  • 76 Arkhiv JuZR, ch. 2, t. 2, Kiev, 1888: 34

22The szlachta may have become used to war, but they grew tired of it too: during the course of the above-mentioned «rozmowy przyjacielskie» [friendly talks] of 1649, the opponents bitterly complained to each other: «compassio, że się krew chrześciańska niewinnie leje»71 [compassio that innocent Christian blood is being spilled]. However, the political elite’s take on the conditions of the truce might have differed considerably from the opinions of commoners from the war-ravished lands72: rumors of a truce spread faster than actual negotiations. The expectations linked to the upcoming treaty can be gleaned from a diary entry by the Orthodox gentryman Joachim Jerlicz, who, having spent the first years of the uprising in Cave monastery, by mid-1651 had settled in Volhynia73. In the entry dated July 10, 1658, having briefly mentioned the Diet that started on that day, Jerlicz posits that the treaty was already settled and sworn on, and even goes so far as to recount its clauses74. These «clauses» are but approximations of the upcoming treaty, and they depart drastically from preliminary clauses set out in the secret negotiations between Pavlo Teterja and Stanisław Bieniewski on July 5, 165875 (these negotiations, however, which had lasted for several months and started in Dubno [Volhynia] in March, could hardly have been kept secret from the local szlachta). In the Diet instructions compiled on June 22, on the eve of this agreement, by Kyivans, Bratslavians and Chernihivans (their joint dietine took place in Volodymyr, Volhynia) there were demands that their «komisarze z naszych województw naznaczeni byli»76 [that commissars from our palatinates be appointed] be privy to compiling clauses of truce with the Cossacks.

  • 77 Harasymchuk V., Materialy do istoriï kozachchyny: 121-123.
  • 78 Jerlicz J., Latopisiec abo Kroyniczka: 215.
  • 79 Pamiętniki o Koniecpolskich. Przyczynek do dziejów polskich XVII wieku, Wyd. Stanisław Przyłęcki, L (...)
  • 80 Szajnocha K., Dwa lata dziejów naszych: 1646, 1648, T. 2, Warszawa, 1900: 548
  • 81 Jakuba Michałowskiego... księga pamiętnicza: 397
  • 82 Pisma polityczne z czasów panowania Jana Kazimierza Wazy: 9 (in this edition, pamphlet is erroneous (...)
  • 83 Hrushevs’kyj M., Istorija Ukraïny-Rusy. Roky 1657-1658, t. x, 1998: 369.

23This means that the «Jerlicz version» of the treaty was apocryphal: a wide-spread concept woven from rumors and passed from hand to hand (for example, when preparing this «popular» version for publication, Vasyl’harasymchuk had used two other copies rather than the one from the Jerlicz chronicle77). The clause most representative of the szlachta outlook of the times is not the amnesty for the rebels (as in the Teterja/Bieniewskij agreement) or the religious issue (as in the final version), but rather the declaration of the establishment of the Ruthenian Principality: «Troie woiewodztwa zawojowane Kijowskie, Bracławskie, Czernihowskie eriguntur in Ducatum Russia, nakształt xięstwa Litewskiego urzędnicy pozwoleni»78 [The three palatinates taken by conquest – the Kyiv, the Bratslav and the Chernihiv palatinates – eriguntur in Ducatum Russia, should be governed like the Lithuanian Princedom]. It bears repeating that the rumor of the rebels’intention to create their own «princedom» had been circulating since the very first days of the uprising. As early as June 4, 1648, Mikołaj Ostroróg wrote to Chancellor Jerzy Ossoliński that Khmel’nyts’kyj «o Kijowie myśli, książęcem ruskim titułując się»79 [is thinking about Kyiv and calling himself a Ruthenian prince]; the anonymous informative letter from Brody dated June 10, 1648, stated that the Cossacks «po Białą Cerkiew i Zadnieprze wszystko chcą wziąć, aby wszystko Księstwo Ruskie mieli»80 [want to grab everything as far as Bila Tserkva and Zadnieprze in order to possess the whole Ruthenian Principality]; in 1649, one of the spies noted that Khmel’nyts’kyj wanted to remain «przy udzielnem Księstwie Ruskiem»81 [having the appanage of the Ruthenian Principality]; the author of the 1651 anonymous pamphlet «Dyskurs o teraźniejszej wojnie kozackiej albo chłopskiej» wrote that the rebels «sobie rzpltą nową kozacką albo Księstwo Ruskie... założą»82 [will establish a new Cossack Commonwealth or Ruthenian Principality]; finally, the councillor (rajca) of Kazimierz, Marcin golinski, noted rumors about the establishment of the «Ruthenian Principality» at almost the same moment that the King gave out his first negotiation instructions to Bieniewski (June 13, 1657)83. In all the aforementioned cases, Polish rumors about the Ruthenian Principality are decidedly negative in tone. However, the tone of the note in Jerlicz’s chronicle is markedly different: despite the fact that the Ruthenian author had previously attacked the rebels, his short description of the swearing of the oath in the Cossack camp and the recounting of its text are generally approbatory. Could this mean that he approved of such an outcome?

  • 84 See also: Dąbrowski J. S., Ugoda Hadziacka: 72-74.
  • 85 Harasymchuk V., Materialy do istoriï kozachchyny: 77
  • 86 Ibid., 92.
  • 87 Harasymchuk V., Materialy do istoriï kozachchyny: 112-119. The version that was (with some changes) (...)
  • 88 Kroll P., Od Ugody Hadziackiej do Cudnowa: 88.
  • 89 Quoted after: Kubala L., Wojny duńskie i pokój oliwski, 1657-1660, Lwów, 1922: 481.

24In preliminary agreements between Teterja and Bieniewski dated July 5, 1658 there is no mention of the «Ruthenian Principality». Neither does it appear to have been mentioned at secret sessions of the Diet commission on July 18-25, 1658, when these agreements were discussed; they only discussed the possibility of granting Cossack territories a «special status» (seorsivum statum) similar to that of the grand Duchy of Lithuania84. The Palatine of Poznań Jan Leszczynski had similar views: in his memorial from July 2, 1658, he recommended the King and Senators «aby taka właśnie beła unia, jako litewska, aby naród nad narodem nie miał praerogatiwy»85 [that the union be similar to the Lithuanian one, so that neither nation could be held superior over the other]. In a way, such views also mirrored the beliefs of the King himself: for example, the Austrian resident noted after talks with him on July 14, 1658, that the peace treaty would most likely be drawn up on the Polish-Lithuanian model: «non... per absolutam subiectionem, sed per quandam speciem accessionis et communionis ad instar Magni Lithuaniae Ducatus»86. As a matter of fact, the final text of the treaty ratified at the Cossack council in hadjach87 mentioned the «Ruthenian Principality»; therefore, it is probable that this clause was included at the very last stage of the negotiations in September 16, 1658, when the Cossacks were represented by Jurij Nemyrych88. It is likely that Nemyrych, as the proponent of a federative political system, was himself the author of the «Ruthenian Principality» formula as used to describe the status of the Cossack state. On February 3, 1658, well before the hadjach council, Jan Leszczynski wrote to Bogusław Leszczynski that Nemyrych (related to the Leszczynskys through marriage) «Kozakom perswaduje być jako holenderowie albo Szwajcarowie»89 [is persuading the Cossacks to become like the Dutch or the Swiss].

  • 90 Harasymchuk V., Materialy do istoriï kozachchyny: 118.
  • 91 Tazbir J., Polityczne meandry Jerzego Niemirycza, in: Przegląd Historyczny, 1984, t. 75, z. 1: 33.

25It is likely that the «Ruthenian Principality» clause was influenced not only by Nemyrych’s political preferences, but also by his ambitions; after all, he was the richest, the most noble and the best-educated person in the Cossack szlachta leadership of the time. To paraphrase the Union of Lublin of 1569, the Treaty of hadjach stressed the voluntary accession to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth «iako wolni do wolnych, rowni do rownych y zacni do zacnych» [like the free to the free, equals to equals, and nobles to nobles], which, naturally, meant that the «Ruthenian nation» should, like the szlachta of the grand Duchy of Lithuania, have its own senator-level functionaries, «osobnych pieczętarzow, marszałkow, podskarbich cum dignitate senatoria»90 [its own keepers of seals, marshals, treasurers cum dignitate senatoria]. As we know, it did not come to marshals and treasurers but, by mid-December, 1658, Ivan Vyhovs’kyj had started making requests to the Crown Chancellor that Nemyrych be appointed Chancellor («o wielką pieczęć księstw ruskich» [of the great seal of the Ruthenian Principality])91. In the Diet of 1659, where the treaty was confirmed, Nemyrych took part as a Chancellor.

  • 92 Kroll P., Od Ugody Hadziackiej do Cudnowa: 188-190; Drozdowski M. R., Unia Hadziacka w opinii szlac (...)
  • 93 Akta grodzkie i ziemskie z Archiwum tzw. Bernardyńskiego we Lwowie. Lauda sejmikowe halickie, 1575- (...)
  • 94 Arkhiv JuZR, ch. 2, t. 2: 59.
  • 95 See also notes by golinski: hrushevs’kyj M., Istorija Ukraïny-Rusy, t. x: 369.
  • 96 See also the sarcastic note made by Jerlicz: Jerlicz J., Latopisiec abo Kroyniczka: 214. Indeed, Bi (...)
  • 97 Arkhiv JuZR, ch. 2, t. 2: 48.

26In its instructions for the Diet of 1659, the szlachta of the palatinates of Rus’ and Bełz endorsed the treaty without paying great attention to its details92; the closer the szlachta lived to dangerous territories, the more they endorsed it: as is stated in the instruction from halych, «im bliżsi jesteśmy sąsiedzi Ukrainy, tem milsze i pożądańsze musi nam być uspokojenie z nią»93 [the closer neighbours we are to Ukraine, the more the peace treaty should be sought after]. However, Volhynians, Kyivans, Chernihivans and Bratslavians had more detailed views on the treaty. For example, the Volhynian instruction shows resentment to the fact that the «general public» remained uninformed about the conditions of the treaty94. This, of course, was just rhetoric, since at least two versions (the preliminary Teterja/Bieniewski version, as well as the version recounted by Jerlicz) must have been circulating in Volhynia; moreover, Volhynians could not possibly have missed the rumours that Volhynia would be turned over to the «Ruthenian Principality»95. The lack of sources makes it impossible to establish for sure what really bothered the Volhynian, Kyivan, Chernihivan and Bratslavian szlachta; they probably distrusted Bieniewski, who they still considered an upstart of humble origins, despite his rapid career.96. In any case, dietine instructions required Diet delegates to ensure that representatives from the above-mentioned palatinates be included in the «commission with the Cossacks», so that «o kraje ukrainne obywatele traktowali ukrainni»97 [Ukrainian citizens should negotiate the fate of the Ukrainian lands].

  • 98 Rudomicz B., Efemeros czyli Diariusz prywatny pisany w Zamościu w latach 1656-1672. Cz. 1: 1656-166 (...)
  • 99 For example, in his letter to Balaban from June 13, 1657, permitting him to go to Kyiv order to tak (...)
  • 100 Hrushevs’kyj M., Istorija Ukraïny-Rusy, t. x: 99-100.

27Anyway, regardless of their political doubts or affiliations, everyone wanted peace. The Ruthenian professor of the Zamojski Academy, the converted Catholic Vasyl’ Rudomych noted precisely in his diary the rumors about negotiations regarding «upragnionego pokoju» [the longed-for peace]; on August 6, 1658 he even started a text about «o miłości bratniej Polaków i Rusinów»98 [brotherly love between Poles and Ruthenians]. Such views might have been shared by Rudomych’s «colleagues», the Kyiv-Mohyla collegium professors and Kyivan Orthodox leaders overall. Signs of their accord with hetman Ivan Vyhovs’kyj came in late 1657, when the church council elected Lutsk eparch Dionisij Balaban, whose candidature was supported by Vyhovs’kyj and the King, as the next metropolitan after the death of Syl’vestr Kosov99. Alas, since the election statement has not survived, we do not know what representatives of secular szlachta and Kyivan church leaders took part in this council, which was not sanctioned by the czar or the Muscovite patriarch100.

  • 101 More about these negotiations see in: Mironowicz A., Prawosławie i unia za panowania Jana Kazimierz (...)
  • 102 Kempa T., Konfesijna problema v Hadjats’kij uhodi, in: Hadjats’ka unija 1658 roku, red. V. Brekhune (...)
  • 103 Rudomicz B., Efemeros czyli Diariusz: 130-132.

28Dionisij Balaban’s affiliations were self-evident. After all, though with certain reservations, he took part in discussing the proposition for a united council with the Uniates, presented to the king in late 1658101; it was he who received the Cossack embassy’s oath that they would keep to the agreements at the 1659 Diet; many saw him as the head of the united church, if ever a Kyivan patriarchate was to be established under the jurisdiction of the Pope102. When describing his conversation with the metropolitan on July 30, 1659, Vasyl’ Rudomych underscores that they talked «o najmilszej sprawie unii» [about the most desired affair of the union]. After that he became even more fervent in his search for proof for the compilation of the text about «the brotherhood» of Poles and Ruthenians, which he had started a year earlier103.

  • 104 Chynczewska-hennel T., Pojednanie polsko-ukraińskie w wierszach Łazara Baranowicza, in: Kultura sta (...)
  • 105 Frick D. A., Lazar Baranovych, 1680: The Union of Lech and Rus, in: Culture, Nation and Identity. T (...)
  • 106 Ibid., 28.
  • 107 Ibid., 46.

29Harder to establish are political affiliations of the second major player on the Orthodox Church scene of the time, archbishop of Chernihiv Lazar Baranovych, the most influential Kyivan church leader. He was a cautious man, especially when cast in the epicenter of the Cossack uprising. Baranovych is often stereotypically cast in historiography as the proponent of the Muscovite agenda in Ukraine, though the views of this enigmatic leader still remain poorly investigated. So far, there have only been two attempts to examine Baranovych from different perspectives: the articles by Teresa Chynczewska-hennel104 and by David Frick105. Frick persuasively demonstrates that Baranovych’s worldview was shared by many of those who grew up before the war and, therefore, perceived that the Polish and the Ruthenian cultural worlds were indissolubly linked into a Commonwealth, a shared «Sarmatian» world. Frick notes that even in the later poetry by Baranovych (first and foremost the collection Lutnia Apollinowa, 1671) «we find the image of a Rzecz Pospolita Trojga Narodów, a Commonwealth of Three Nations – Poland, Lithuania, and Rus’– as Ruthenian polemicists had long been asserting for their own purposes, and as the architects of the Treaty of hadjach had planned»106. Even some quarter of a century after the Treaty of hadjach, in Notiy pięć: Ran Chrystusowych pięć (1680) Baranovych wrote: «Ruś a Lachi – cewka złota, nie trzeba w niey rozwijać złota od iedwabiu, bo to pospołu chodzić ma oboie; samym złotem nie mógłby nic zrobić, bo tęgie, nie da się użyć na szycie, trzeba do niego iedwabiu»107 [Rus’and the Lachs are a golden bobbin. gold should not be unwound on it from silk, for they are both required together. You can’t use gold alone to make thread, since it is stiff. It cannot be used for sewing without the addition of silk].

  • 108 Kyjevo-Mohyljans’ka akademija v imenakh. xvii-xviii st. Entsyklopedychne vydannja, Kyïv, Vydavnychy (...)
  • 109 Mironowicz A., Sylwester Kossow, biskup białoruski, metropolita kijowski, Białystok, Bialoruskie To (...)
  • 110 Akty JuZR, V. 4 (1657-1659), SPb, 1863: 45.
  • 111 Ibid., V. 15 (1658-1659), SPb, 1892: 287-288.
  • 112 Brogi Bercoff g., Renesansni istoriohrafichni mify v Ukraïni: 431-432

30Baranovych (Chancellor of the Kyiv-Mohyla collegium since 1650108) was ordained an eparch of Chernihiv and Novhorod-Sivers’kyj on March 8, 1657, in Iaşi: as many researchers suggest, Syl’vestr Kosov, who at the time was a metropolitan, strove to distance himself from this decision, taken by the Muscovite patriarchate109. As a deputy on the metropolitan chair after the death of Kosow, Baranovych blessed the insignia of hetman Ivan Vyhovs’kyj on October 27, 1657; however, the ceremony did not take place in the metropolitan Cathedral of Saint Sophia, where Khmel’nyts’kyj’s insignia were consecrated earlier, but on his «own turf», in the Epiphany church of the Brotherhood monastery, that is, in the Kyiv-Mohyla collegium110. Some conflict between Kyivan hierarchs, undocumented in surviving sources, is hinted at, not only by the place of this consecration, but also by a later episode: on November 19, 1658, it was not the deputy metropolitan Baranovych, but the Cave monastery archimandrite Inokentij gizel’ who took the oath of loyalty to the czar from the hetman’s representative (since Vyhovs’kyj himself did not arrive in Kyiv, purportedly due to illness)111. If gizel’ was indeed, as some suggest, the author of Synopsis (1674), which showed considerable loyalty to Moscow, this could serve as further proof of giovanna Brogi-Bercoff’s hypothesis that there were important differences in views between gizel’ and the Kyiv-Mohyla collegium representatives regarding the supremacy of the Muscovite czar, prospective contacts with the Poles and possible closer relations with Rome112.

  • 113 Kyjevo-Mohyljans’ka akademija v imenakh: 360
  • 114 See extensive biographical treatise in Wojcech Kojałowicz’s armorial: Kojałowicz W. W., ks., Herbar (...)
  • 115 Rus’ka (Volyns’ka) metryka. Knyha za 1652-1673 rr., pidh. P. Kulakovs’kyj, Ostroh/ /Varshava/ Moskv (...)
  • 116 Kojałowicz W. W., Herbarz rycerstwa W. X. Litewskiego: 230-231

31The assumption that Lazar Baranovych had «covertly influenced» the Kyiv-Mohyla professors’ loyalty to the Treaty of hadjach is indirectly corroborated by the choice of personalities who were more influential in the Collegium in 1657-1659, while negotiations were still underway, power was still shifting, and the treatise was not yet finalized. From August 1657 till August 1658 the collegium was headed by Jan Jozef (the latter was the name he took with his monastic vows) Meszczeryn/Meszczers’kyj113, a Belarusian noble with a somewhat convoluted biography. Having been educated in the Smolensk Jesuit collegium, he became a nobleman in the court of Władysław IV; later he fought as a mercenary in the Thirty Years’ War, and, having returned, fought with Rakoczi. He took monastic vows at the beginning of August in 1657114: the date coincides suspiciously with the death of Bohdan Khmel’nyts’kyj, and he became the Chancellor of the Kyiv-Mohyla collegium as a relative of Ivan Vyhovs’kyj through marriage (the hetman’s brother Kostjantyn was married to Meszczeryn’s sister). The fact that Meszczers’kyj was one of the King’s «ambassadors» in Kyiv following Khmel’nyts’kyj’s death is further proved by his prompt resignation from the Chernihiv archimandrite chair: having received the chair in the autumn of 1658, he resigned on July 7, 1659, right after the Treaty of hadjach was confirmed. He explained this decision as follows: «teraz od tegoż Króla IMci, pana m [ego] miłościwe [go], i wszytkiej Rzeczyptej ad varias legationes vocowany in gravissimis Reipub [li] cae negotiis»115. According to Kojałowicz, he even went so far as to tell his former Jesuit professors that «cuculus non facit monachum»; Meszczeryn’s further career as a soldier can be traced through the Prussian campaign and the battle with the Muscovite army near Slobodyshche (1660)116.

  • 117 Ėjngorn V., Ocherki iz istorii Malorossii v XVII v. Snoshenija malorossijskogo dukhovenstva s mosko (...)
  • 118 Galjatovs’kyj I., Kljuch rozuminnja, pidh. I. P. Chepiha, Kyïv, Naukova dumka, 1985: 56.

32When negotiations for the Treaty of hadjach were almost finished in autumn 1658, another student of Baranovych, Ioanikij galjatovs’kyj, became the Chancellor of the Kyiv-Mohyla collegium. He was forced to leave Kyiv in 1664 in the wake of his conflict with Mefodij Fylymonovych, Baranovych’s opponent and his successor as Kyivan metropolitan deputy117; he was offered sanctuary by the bishop of Lviv Atanasij Zhelibors’kyj, once an active mediator between the royal court and Vyhovs’kyj. In a dedication to Zhelibors’kyj in his book Keys to Understanding (1665, published in Lviv), galjatovs’kyj characterizes the Cossack uprising as an «internal war in our fatherland», and among Zhelibors’kyj’s other virtues mentions the fact that he succeeded «with wise words» when «he sent an embassy… to Ukraine to appease the Zaporizhian Cossacks»118.

  • 119 Akty JuZR, t. 8 (1668-1669, 1648-1657), SPb, 1875: 15.
  • 120 Mytsyk Ju., Hadjats’kyj dohovir 1658 r. u vysvitlenni ukraïns’kykh litopystsiv, in: Hadjats’ka unij (...)
  • 121 Sofonovych, F., Khronika z litopystsiv starodavnikh, pidh. Ju. A. Mytsyk, V. M. Kravchenko, Kyïv, N (...)

33No direct information on how other Kyivan church leaders reacted to the Treaty of hadjach survived. Indirect proof of approbation can be found in a later (1669) denunciation against Feodosij Sofonovych, the hegumen of the golden-Domed Monastery of St. Michael, a fellow student and friend of Baranovych: the author of the denunciation calls Sofonovych «the biggest traitor» and accuses him of contacting Vyhovs’kyj and helping Dionisij Balaban become a metropolitan in 1658119. If this is taken into account, it seems telling that Sofonovych’s chronicle (written about 1673 – 1674) describes the Treaty of hadjach, as Jurij Mytsyk puts it, «with unnatural conciseness»120: the author does not call the treaty a betrayal, moreover, he underscores the possible attainment of «liberties» and blames the lack of success on the fact that the king broke his promise («potom toje ot krolja ne stalosja kozakom» [later on the king would not give that to the Cossacks])121.

  • 122 More on this see in: Jakovenko N., Kyïvs’ki profesory za lashtunkamy Hadjats’koï uhody (pro sprobu (...)
  • 123 Jerlicz J., Latopisiec abo Kroyniczka: 233.
  • 124 Jemiołowski M., Pamiętnik dzieje Polski zawierający (1648-1679), opr. J. Dzięgielewski, Warszawa, W (...)
  • 125 «In libertate nati sumus, in libertate educati, do tejże i teraz liberi przystępujemy». Quoted afte (...)

34Because of the lack of sources, it is now hard to tell which clauses of the Treaty of hadjach were commended the most. It seems that each reader was looking out for what was most important to himself. Without any doubt, for professors of the Kyiv-Mohyla collegium the most important promise regarded the possibility of their collegium becoming a university – most likely, they themselves had «lobbied» this clause122. For the petty Orthodox gentryman and former monk Joachim Jerlicz, the most important points were the ones pertaining to the church: he dwells on them when recounting the ratification of the treaty at the Diet of 1659, where «religia grecka uspokojona i unija zniesiona wiecznymi czasy»123 [the greek faith was appeased and the union was rescinded forever]. Of course, most szlachta fugitives had practical reasons for triumph, as they had a chance to return to their homes. It may be that some undocumented sentiment linked to the pre-war notion of the «third nation» of the Commonwealth had proliferated at the time. The Polish-galician noble Mikołaj Jemiołowski hints at just such a sentiment: according to him, the most salient feature of the Treaty of hadjach is that it gave power to Ruthenians in «Ukrainian» palatinates: «kanclerz, podskarbi, marszałek aby także Księstwa Ruskiego był, a z tych każdy Rusin»124 [the Ruthenian Principality should have a chancellor, treasurer and marshal, and all of them should be Ruthenians]. Political declarations of szlachta leaders affiliated with the Cossacks (such as Nemyrych, Vyhovs’kyj or Teterja), meanwhile, celebrated their escape from «the Muscovite tyranny» and their return to the usual Commonwealth world of szlachta liberties; as Jurij Nemyrych had eloquently put it at the Diet of 1569, «We were born in freedom, raised in it, and now, free, are returning to it»125.

*

  • 126 Jerlicz J., Latopisiec abo Kroyniczka: 232

35Subsequent events, as we know, dashed all these hopes. Jerlicz noted that after the Battle of Konotop (1659) and the start of Tymofij Tsytsjura’s rebellion, szlachta were once again being slain, even though they «już cale ufali onych przysiędze, że pokój stanoł, i do domow swych jachali z Wołynia»126 [believed the oath that peace came, and started returning from Volhynia to their homes]. This was the beginning of one of the darkest pages in Ukrainian history of the 17th C., the so-called Ruin. The szlachta and the hierarchs of «royal» Ukraine went their own separate ways, getting farther and farther from the Cossacks, whereas the Kyivan hierarchs and the Kyiv-Mohyla collegium professors started demonstrating real or forced loyalty to Moscow. Each group had strong reasons for changing its views. Among such reasons, I should mention lack of confidence in their ability to change the course of events, disenchantment with Cossack coalitions with «the enemies of the holy Cross» (Tatars and Turks), the belief that legitimate and righteous authority could come only from an anointed sovereign, and moral weariness with bloody wars.

  • 127 Quoted after: Kubala L., Wojny duńskie a pokój oliwski: 253.
  • 128 Arkhiv JuZR, ch. 2, t. 2: 90-91, 110-111.
  • 129 Ibid., 497. More on this see in: Kamiński A., The Cossack Experiment in Szlachta Democracy in the P (...)

36While persuading the Senate commission to accept the clauses of the Treaty of hadjach in 1659, Stanisław Bieniewski had purportedly reassured the Senators as follows: «Samorząd Rusi jako odrębnego księstwa także długo nie potrwa. Kozacy, co teraz myślą o tem, wymrą, a ich następcy już nie tak gorąco będą przy tem obstawać i powoli wszystko wróci do dawnego stanu»127 [Self-government of Ruthenia as a separate principality will not last long. The Cossacks think it will soon die out, and their heirs will not be such ardent supporters of the idea, and everything will return to the way it once was]. The Volhynian Castellan was right not only about the Cossack leaders, but also about the enthusiastic szlachta. The instruction of the Volhynian dietine had started demanding denunciations of the «Ruthenian Principality» as early as 1661; the Kyivan szlachta shared their views, despite having been more enthusiastic supporters of the Treaty of hadjach128. However, even this support had waned with time. By the end of the 17th C. the szlachta were no longer treating the new generation of Cossack leaders as «prodigal brothers»: the instruction of the Kyivan palatinate to the Diet delegates in 1692 called Semen Palij «dux malorum et scelorum artifex», and accused him of intending to resuscitate the Treaty of hadjach129.

Notes

1 Arkhiv Jugo-Zapadnoj Rossii, izdavaemyj Vremennoj komissiej dlja razbora drevnikh aktov [ further mentions – Arkhiv JuZR], ch. 2, t. 1, Kiev, 1861: 284.

2 Zerov M., Literaturna pozytsija M. Staryts’koho (v dvadtsjat’ p’jati rokovyny smerti), in: idem, Ukraïns’ke pys’menstvo, upor. M. Sulyma, Kyïv, Osnovy, 2003: 669.

3 Hrushevs’kyj M., Istorija Ukraïny-Rusy. Pochatky Khmel’nychchyny (1638-1648), t. VIII, ch. 2 Kyïv, Naukova dumka, 19952, (1922): 3-41.

4 Ibid., 3.

5 Volumina Legum. Przedruk zbioru praw staraniem xx. Pijarów w Warszawie, od roku 1732 roku 1782 wydanego, wyd. J. Ohryzko, t. 3, Petersburg, 1859: 440.

6 Hrushevs’kyj M., Istorija Ukraïny-Rusy, t. VIII, ch. 2: 129

7 See also: Pritsak O., Istoriosofija Mykhajla Hrushevs’koho, in: hrushevs’kyj M., Istorija Ukraïny-Rusy, t. I. Kyïv, Naukova dumka, 1991: lxv-lxix; Masnenko V., Istorychna dumka ta natsiotvorennja v Ukraïni. Kinets’ XIX-persha tretyna xx st., Kyïv/Cherkasy, Vidlunnja-Pljus, 2001: 316-317.

8 Hrushevs’kyj M., Istorija Ukraïny-Rusy, t. VIII, ch. 2: 5-6.

9 Ibid., 43-50, 83-112.

10 Ibid., 51.

11 Kulakovs’kyj P., Chernihovo-Sivershchyna u skladi Rechi Pospolytoï, 1618-1648, Kyïv, Tempora, 2006: 246-390.

12 Krykun M., Kil’kist’i struktura poselen’Bratslavs’koho vojevodstva v pershij polovyni xvii stolittja, in: idem, Bratslavs’ke vojevodstvo u xvi-xviii stolittjakh. Statti ta materialy, L’viv, Vydavnytstvo Ukraïns’koho Katolyts’koho universytetu, 2008: 186-288.

13 Litwin h., Równi do równych. Kijowska reprezentacja sejmowa, 1569-1648. Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Dig, 2009: 150-152.

14 Mazur K., W stronę integracji z Koroną. Sejmiki Wołynia i Ukrainy w latach 1569-1648, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Neriton, 2006: 364-402.

15 Their names are listed in: ibid., 417-419.

16 Krykun M., Jak vidbuvsja peredsejmovyj sejmyk Bratslavs’koho vojevodstva v 1634 rotsi, in idem, Bratslavs’ke vojevodstvo u xvi-xviii stolittjakh: 330.

17 Litwin h., Równi do równych: 151.

18 Kulakovs’kyj P., Chernihovo-Sivershchyna u skladi Rechi Pospolytoï: 165.

19 Litwin h., Równi do równych: 133

20 Quoted after: Lypyns’kyj V., Uchast’ shljakhty u velykomu ukraïns’komu povstanni pid provodom het’mana Bohdana Khmel’nyts’koho, Filjadel’fija (Penns.), Skhidnojevropejs’kyj doslidnyj instytut im. V. K. Lypyns’koho, 1980: 88.

21 Sysyn F. E., Regionalism and Political Thought in Seventeen-Century Ukraine: The Nobility’s Grievances at the Diet of 1641, «Harvard Ukrainian Studies», 1982, vol. 6, n. 2: 172.

22 Kulakovs’kyj P., Chernihovo-Sivershchyna u skladi Rechi Pospolytoï: 146-147.

23 Sysyn F. E., Regionalism and Political Thought in Seventeen-Century Ukraine: 173

24 An analysis of the earliest work of this kind, Camoenae Borysthenides, can be found in: Jakovenko N., Latyna na sluzhbi kyjevo-rus’koï istoriï («Camoenae Borysthenides», 1620 rik), in: idem, Paralel’nyj svit. Doslidzhennja z istoriï ujavlen’ta idej v Ukraïni xvi-xvii st., Kyïv, Krytyka, 2002: 270-295. Contents and historiographic peculiarities of the hustyn Chronicle is reviewed in: Sysyn F. E., The Cultural, Social and Political Context of Ukrainian History-Writing: 1620-1690, in: «Europa Orientalis», vol. 5, Roma, 1986: 297-302; Brogi Bercoff g., Renesansni istoriohrafichni mify v Ukraïni, in: Ukraïna xvii stolittja. Suspil’stvo, filosofija, kul’tura. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats’na poshanu pamjati profesora Valeriï Mykhajlivny Nichyk, red. L. Dovha, N. Jakovenko, Kyïv, Krytyka, 2005: 426-429. For an overview of «historical motifs» of other writings of Mohylan and pre-Mohylan times, see: Jakovenko N., Symvol «Bogokhranimogo grada» u pam’jatkakh kyïvs’koho kola (1620-ti – 1640-vi roky), in: idem, Paralel’nyj svit: 314-324.

25 [Okolscii, Simonis], Orbis Polonus… in quo antiqua Sarmatarum gentilitia… specificantur et relucent, t. 1-3, Cracoviae, In officina Fr. Caesarii, 1641-1645. For Okolski’s biography see: Dworzaczek W., świętochowski R., Okolski Szymon, in: Polski Słownik Biograficzny, t. 23, Kraków, 1978: 679-681.

26 For in-depth analysis of these legends, see: Jakovenko N., Vnesok heral’dyky u tvorennja «terytoriï z istorijeju» (herbovi lehendy volyns’koï, kyïvs’koï i bratslavs’koï shljakhty kintsja XVI - seredyny XVII st.), «Zapysky Naukovoho Tovarystva imeni Shevchenka», 2010, vol. cclx, kn. 1: 274-298.

27 See also: Frick D. A., Meletij Smotryc’kyj, Cambridge (Mass.), 1995: 247-260.

28 [Okolscii, Simonis], Russia florida rosis et liliis, hoc est sanguine, praedicatione, religione et vita FF. Ordinis Praedicatorum peregrinatione inchoata… Leopoli, Typis Collegii Societatis Jesu, 1646.

29 Ibid., 62, 71.

30 The events mentioned above are the Diet debates of 1638-1641 on the proposal to do away with princely titles. The title discussion is covered in many works, including the recent: Trawicka Z., Sejm z roku 1639, in: Studia Historyczne, t. 15, z. 4, Kraków, 1972: 551-598; Sysyn F. E., Between Poland and the Ukraine: The Dilemma of Adam Kysil, 1600-1653, Cambridge (Mass.), harvard University Press, 1985: 104-114; Tomaszek A., Sejm 1638 r. w obronie szlacheckiej równości, in: Czasopismo prawno-historyczne, t. 39, z. 2, Warszawa, 1987: 17-31; Mazur K., W stronę integracji z Koroną: 387-392.

31 Quoted after appendices to the article by Frank Sysyn: Regionalism and Political Thought in Seventeen-Century Ukraine: 186, 189.

32 For analysis of this work as a type of «program» for Kyïv ecclesiastical evolution inhylan and pre-Mohylan times, see: Jakovenko N., Symvol «Bogokhranimogo grada»: 311-330.

33 Pamjatniki polemicheskoj literatury v Zapadnoj Rusi, Kn 1, SPb, 1878, Stb. 1110 («istoricheskaja biblioteka», t. 4).

34 Quoted after: Arkhiv JuZR, ch. 1, t. 7, Kiev, 1887: 514

35 Published in: Dokumenty, objasnjajushchie istoriju Zapadno-russkogo kraja i ego otnoshenie Rossii i Pol’she, 1b, 1865: 230-310.

36 Reviewed in: Chynczewska-hennel T., «Do praw i przywilejów swoich dawnych». jako argument w polemice prawosławnych w pierwszej połowie xvii w., in: Między Wschodem a Zachodem. Rzeczpospolita xvi-xviii w. Studia ofiarowane Zbigniewowi Wójcikowi w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin, Warszawa, Wydawnictwa Fundacji «historia pro Futuro», 1993: 53-60.

37 Quoted after: Arkhiv JuZR, ch. 1, t. 7: 547

38 Arkhiv JuZR, ch. 2, t. 1: 203.

39 Ibid., 207.

40 Melnyk M., Spór o zbawienie. Zagadnienia soteriologiczne w świetle prawosławnych projek tów unijnych powstałych w Rzeczypospolitej (koniec XVI-połowa XVII wieku), Olsztyn, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski, 2001 (this work also presents a comprehensive bibliographic overview of the problem); Chynczewska-hennel T., Nuncjusz i król. Nuncjatura Maria Filonardiego w Rzeczypospolitej, 1636-1643, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Neriton, 2006: 117-129.

41 The planned date of the council is mentioned in the diary of Stanislaw Oświęcim: Oświęcim S., Dyaryusz, 1643-1651, Kraków, 1907: 205 («Scriptores Rerum Polonicarum», t. 19). The preparations are described in: Sysyn F. E., Between Poland and the Ukraine. The Dilemma of Adam Kysil: 117-127; Plokhij S. N., Papstvo i Ukraina. Politika Rimskoj kurii na ukrainskikh zemljakh v XVI-XVII vv., Kiev, Vyshcha shkola, 1989: 148-156.

42 Cossack actions against any such understanding are covered in: Plokhy S., The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine, Oxford University Press, 2001: 111-144; Drozdowski M., Religia i Kozaczyzna w Rzeczypospolitej w pierwszej połowie XVII wieku, Warszawa, Wadawnictwo Dig, 2008: 161-205.

43 See: hodana T., Między królem a carem. Moskwa w oczach prawosławnych Rusinów – obywateli Rzeczypospolitej (na podstawie piśmiennictwa końca XVI-połowy XVII stulecia), Kraków, Wydawnictwo «Scriptum», 2008: 137-138 («Studia Ruthenica Cracoviensia», 4).

44 See Mohyla’s dedication to Tomasz Zamoyski in Tsvitna Triod’ (1631): Titov Khv., dlja knyzhnoï spravy na Vkraïnii v XVI-XVIII v. Vsezbirka peredmov do ukraïns’kykh starodrukiv, № 36, Kyïv, 1924.

45 For more information on «elaborations» of Chetwertenskyj’s genealogy as supposed to Kyivan Rus’princes and, therefore, patrons of the Orthodox Church, initiated in Kyiv church circles, see: Jakovenko N., Vnesok heral’dyky u tvorennja «terytoriï z istorijeju», «Zapysky Naukovoho Tovarystva imeni Shevchenka», 2010, vol. cclx, kn. 1: 274-298.

46 See also: Jakovenko N., Kyïv pid shatrom Sventol’dychiv (mohyljans’kyj panehiryk Tentoria venienti Kioviam 1646 p.), in: Nel mondo degli Slavi. Incontri e dialoghi tra culture. Studi in onore di Giovanna Brogi Bercoff, a cura di M. Di Salvo, g. Moracci, g. Siedina, vol. 1, Firenze University Press, 2008: 297-311.

47 Plokhyj S., Papstvo i Ukraina: 155.

48 Ševčenko I., The Many Worlds of Peter Mohyla, «harvard Ukrainian Studies», 1984, vol. 8, n. 1-2: 9.

49 Pamiętniki Samuela i Bogusława Maskiewiczów (wiek XVII), opr. A. Sajkowski, Wrocław: Zakład imienia Ossolińskich – Wydawnictwo, 1961: 237-239.

50 Maiores illustrissimorum principum Korybut Wiszniewiecciorum in suo nepote... Ieremia Korybut Wiszniewiecki... Ab auditoribus eloquentiae in Collegio Mohilaeano Kioviensi comice cum eorum gestis memorabilibus celebrati. Anno D [omi] ni 1648, Maii die 1. For more in-depth analysis of the panegyric, see: Jakovenko N., Koho topchut’koni zvytjazhnoho Korybuta: do zahadky kyjevomohyljans’koho panehiryka 1648 r. «Maiores Wiszniewiecciorum», in: Synopsis. Essays in Honor of Zenon E. Kohut, eds. S. Plokhy and F. Sysyn, Edmonton, University of Alberta, 2005: 191-218.

51 «Effusus populus, tota plebs witała go w polu, i Academia oracyami i acclamacyami, Moijsem, servatorem, salvatorem, liberatorem populi de servitute Lechica...» (Jakuba Michałowskiego... księga pamiętnicza, wyd. A. Z. helcel, Kraków, 1864: 377).

52 For depictions of this period in Kosov-Khmel’nyts’kyj relationship, see: Plokhy S., The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine: 246-253.

53 Ibid., 257-260.

54 Khmel’nyts’kyj had issues 6 such universals as early as in 1648; later on, their number varied from 3-4 to 7-9 per year: Universaly Bohdana Khmel’nyts’koho, 1648-1657, upor. I. Kryp’jakevych, I. Butych, Kyïv, Al’ternatyvy, 1998.

55 Akty, otnosjashchiesja k istorii Juzhnoj i Zapadnoj Rossii, izdannye Arkheograficheskoj komissieju [in further mentions – Akty JuZR], t. 3 (1648-1657), SPb, 1862: 281, 404.

56 Jakuba Michałowskiego... księga pamiętnicza: 383

57 Lypyns’kyj V., Uchast’shljakhty u velykomy ukraïns’komu povstanni: 571 (index of names: 557-566).

58 Ugody polsko-ukraińskie w XVII wieku. Pol’s’ko-ukraïns’ki uhody v XVII stolitti, Red. i tłum. O. Aleksejczuk, Kraków, Wydawnictwo «Platan», 2002: 40 (Treaty of Zboriv). In the Treaty of Bila Tserkva: «... tych wszystkich ma okrywać admistitia, przy zdrowiach, honorach, kondycjach i substancjach swoich mają być zachowani» (p. 44) [... they are all covered by the admistitia, to continue in their livelihood, honours, conditions and substances].

59 Lypyns’kyj V., Uchast’shljakhty u velykomy ukraïns’komu povstanni: 94.

60 Relacje wojenne z pierwszych lat walk polsko-kozackich powstania Bohdana Chmielnickiego okresu «Ogniem i mieczem» (1648-1651), opr. M. Nagielski, Warszawa, Viking, 1999: 156. The same sometimes with indication of names: Relacyja ekspedycyjej w roku Pańskim 1649 przeciw Chmielnickiemu rytmem polskim przez Marcina Kuczwarewicza... przełożona, Lublin, 1650. Quoted after the reprint: Arma Cosacica. Poezja okolicznościowa o wojnie polsko-kozackiej (1648-1649),opr. P. Borek, Kraków, Collegium Columbinum, 2005: 179, 194-196.

61 Oświęcim S., Dyaryusz, 1643-1651: 344-345 (entry dated July 3, 1651)

62 Arkhiv JuZR, ch. 3, t. 4: 121-122

63 Natsional’no-vyzvol’na vijna v Ukraïni, 1648-1651. Zbirnyk za dokumentamy aktovykh knyh, upor. L. A. Sukhykh, V. V. Strashko, Kyïv, Derzhavnyj komitet arkhivi Ukraïny, 2008: 115; Lypyns’kyj V., Uchast’shljakhty u velykomy ukraïns’komu povstanni: 458 (footnote № 247).

64 Natsional’no-vyzvol’na vijna v Ukraïni: 250

65 Na «Trąbę» żołnierska odpowiedź w roku 1648. [S. l., 1648], in: Arma Cosacica: 80.

66 Oświęcenie tępych oczu synów koronnych i W. Ks. Litewskiego w ciemnej chmurze rebeliej schizmatyckiej będących, in Pisma polityczne z czasów panowania Jana Kazimierza Wazy, 1648-1668. Publicystyka – eksorbitancje – projekty – memoriały, t. 1: 1648-1660, opr. S. Ochmann-Staniszewska, Wrocław, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1989: 127.

67 Quoted after: Lypyns’kyj V., Ukraïna na perelomi, 1657-1659. Zamitky do istoriï ukraïns’koho derzhavnoho budivnytstva v XVII-im stolitti, Filadel’fija, Skhidnojevropejs’kyj doslidnyj instytut im V. K. Lypyns’koho, 1991: 245 (footnote № 85).

68 See biographical comparisons in: Lypyns’kyj V., Uchast’shljakhty u velykomy ukraïns’komu povstanni: 211-223.

69 Relacje wojenne z pierwszych lat walk polsko-kozackich: 139.

70 Natsional’no-vyzvol’na vijna v Ukraïni: 345.

71 Relacje wojenne z pierwszych lat walk polsko-kozackich: 139.

72 On opinions of the higher and court elites, see: Dąbrowski J. S., Przed «Potopem». Senatorowie koronni wobec Kozaczyzny i Ukrainy w latach 1654-1655, in: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace historyczne, Z. 130, Kraków, 2003: 87-102; idem, Ugoda Hadziacka na sejmie 1658 roku, in: W kręgu Hadziacza A. D. 1658. Od historii do literatury, pod red. P. Borka, Kraków, Collegium Columbinum, 2008: 46-78; Kroll P., Od Ugody Hadziackiej do Cudnowa. Kozyczyzna między Rzecząpospolitą a Moskwą w latach 1658-1660, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2008: 63-67; Drozdowski M. R., Unia Hadziacka w opinii szlacheckiej, in: 350-lecie Unii Hadziackiej (1658-2008), pod red. T. Chynczewskiej-hennel, P. Krolla i M. Nagielskiego, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Dig, 2008: 132-153.

73 Many misconceptions about Jerlicz’s biography, have been discussed and corrected by recent research. Cf. Teslenko I., Rodynnyj klan Jerlychiv, in: Sotsium. Al’manakh sotsial’noï istoriï, Vyp. 4, Kyïv, Instytut istoriï Ukraïny, 2004: 135-188. For in-depth analysis of Jerlicz’s work, see: Jakovenko N., Zhyttjeprostir versus identychnist’rus’koho shljakhtycha XVII st. (na prykladi Jana/Joakyma Jerlycha), in: Ukraïna XVII stolittja: Suspil’stvo, filosofija, kul’tura. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats’na poshanu pam’jati profesora Valeriï Mykhajlivny Nichyk, Red. L. Dovha, N. Jakovenko, Kyïv, Krytyka, 2005: 475-509. In both articles the Jerlicz Chronicle is quoted after the only surviving copy, prepared for publication for the «South Russian Chronicles» series of the Kyiv Archeographic Commission (kept in the Institute of history of Ukraine). I will quote this text here down.

74 Jerlicz J., Latopisiec abo Kroyniczka rożnych spraw i dzieiow dawnych i teraznieyszych czasow: 214-217. Later, after the entries of February and March of 1659, the true text of the treaty as approved in hadjach is included (p. 219-232).

75 Published: harasymchuk V., Materialy do istoriï kozachchyny XVII viku, L’viv, L’vivs’ke viddilennja Instytutu arkheohrafiï, 1994: 85-87 (sources collected by harasynchuk were set for publication in 1933, but repressions against Ukrainian historians put an end to any such plans; they were published from a type-written copy in 1994).

76 Arkhiv JuZR, ch. 2, t. 2, Kiev, 1888: 34

77 Harasymchuk V., Materialy do istoriï kozachchyny: 121-123.

78 Jerlicz J., Latopisiec abo Kroyniczka: 215.

79 Pamiętniki o Koniecpolskich. Przyczynek do dziejów polskich XVII wieku, Wyd. Stanisław Przyłęcki, Lwów, 1842: 424.

80 Szajnocha K., Dwa lata dziejów naszych: 1646, 1648, T. 2, Warszawa, 1900: 548

81 Jakuba Michałowskiego... księga pamiętnicza: 397

82 Pisma polityczne z czasów panowania Jana Kazimierza Wazy: 9 (in this edition, pamphlet is erroneously dated 1648, even though it mentions the death on Prince Jeremi Wisniowiecki, who died in 1651).

83 Hrushevs’kyj M., Istorija Ukraïny-Rusy. Roky 1657-1658, t. x, 1998: 369.

84 See also: Dąbrowski J. S., Ugoda Hadziacka: 72-74.

85 Harasymchuk V., Materialy do istoriï kozachchyny: 77

86 Ibid., 92.

87 Harasymchuk V., Materialy do istoriï kozachchyny: 112-119. The version that was (with some changes) ratified at the Diet of May 22, 1659, can be read in: Volumina Legum. V. 4: 297-300.

88 Kroll P., Od Ugody Hadziackiej do Cudnowa: 88.

89 Quoted after: Kubala L., Wojny duńskie i pokój oliwski, 1657-1660, Lwów, 1922: 481.

90 Harasymchuk V., Materialy do istoriï kozachchyny: 118.

91 Tazbir J., Polityczne meandry Jerzego Niemirycza, in: Przegląd Historyczny, 1984, t. 75, z. 1: 33.

92 Kroll P., Od Ugody Hadziackiej do Cudnowa: 188-190; Drozdowski M. R., Unia Hadziacka w opinii szlacheckiej: 148-150; Sawicki M., Sejmiki ruskie wobec ugody hadziackiej w 1658 roku, in: W kręgu hadziacza: 135-139.

93 Akta grodzkie i ziemskie z Archiwum tzw. Bernardyńskiego we Lwowie. Lauda sejmikowe halickie, 1575-1695, t. 24, wyd. Antoni Prochaska, Lwów, 1931: 99.

94 Arkhiv JuZR, ch. 2, t. 2: 59.

95 See also notes by golinski: hrushevs’kyj M., Istorija Ukraïny-Rusy, t. x: 369.

96 See also the sarcastic note made by Jerlicz: Jerlicz J., Latopisiec abo Kroyniczka: 214. Indeed, Bieniewski’s career growth was truly breath-taking: before moving out with an embassy to Bohdan Khmel’nyts’kyj, he received a nomination for the Volhynian Castellan on June 11, 1657, straight from his previous modest station of the Luts’k juducial functionary (which was, moreover, ‘ technical’rather than honorary).

97 Arkhiv JuZR, ch. 2, t. 2: 48.

98 Rudomicz B., Efemeros czyli Diariusz prywatny pisany w Zamościu w latach 1656-1672. Cz. 1: 1656-1664, przekład W. Froch, opr. M. L. Klementowski, Lublin, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2002: 92, 96-101.

99 For example, in his letter to Balaban from June 13, 1657, permitting him to go to Kyiv order to take part in the council, Jan Kazimierz voiced hopes that the hierarch, once elected, would look after the Commonwealth’s best interests: Natsional’no-vyzvol’na vijna v Ukraïni: 399.

100 Hrushevs’kyj M., Istorija Ukraïny-Rusy, t. x: 99-100.

101 More about these negotiations see in: Mironowicz A., Prawosławie i unia za panowania Jana Kazimierza, Białystok, Białoruskie Towarzystwo historyczne, 1997: 149-189.

102 Kempa T., Konfesijna problema v Hadjats’kij uhodi, in: Hadjats’ka unija 1658 roku, red. V. Brekhunenko ta in., Kyïv, Instytut ukraïns’koï arkheohrafiï, 2008: 142.

103 Rudomicz B., Efemeros czyli Diariusz: 130-132.

104 Chynczewska-hennel T., Pojednanie polsko-ukraińskie w wierszach Łazara Baranowicza, in: Kultura staropolska – kultura europejska. Prace ofiarowane Januszowi Tazbirowi w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin, Warszawa, Semper, 1997: 325-329.

105 Frick D. A., Lazar Baranovych, 1680: The Union of Lech and Rus, in: Culture, Nation and Identity. The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter (1600-1945), eds. A. Kappeler, Z. E. Kohut, F. E. Sysyn, and M. von hagen, Edmonton/Toronto, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 2003: 19-56.

106 Ibid., 28.

107 Ibid., 46.

108 Kyjevo-Mohyljans’ka akademija v imenakh. xvii-xviii st. Entsyklopedychne vydannja, Kyïv, Vydavnychyj dim KM Akademija, 2001: 59.

109 Mironowicz A., Sylwester Kossow, biskup białoruski, metropolita kijowski, Białystok, Bialoruskie Towarzystwo historyczne, 1999: 112.

110 Akty JuZR, V. 4 (1657-1659), SPb, 1863: 45.

111 Ibid., V. 15 (1658-1659), SPb, 1892: 287-288.

112 Brogi Bercoff g., Renesansni istoriohrafichni mify v Ukraïni: 431-432

113 Kyjevo-Mohyljans’ka akademija v imenakh: 360

114 See extensive biographical treatise in Wojcech Kojałowicz’s armorial: Kojałowicz W. W., ks., Herbarz rycerstwa W. X. Litewskiego tak zwany Compendium czyli o klejnotach albo herbach, Wyd. F. Piekosiński, Kraków, 1897: 229-230.

115 Rus’ka (Volyns’ka) metryka. Knyha za 1652-1673 rr., pidh. P. Kulakovs’kyj, Ostroh/ /Varshava/ Moskva, Print house, 1999: 157.

116 Kojałowicz W. W., Herbarz rycerstwa W. X. Litewskiego: 230-231

117 Ėjngorn V., Ocherki iz istorii Malorossii v XVII v. Snoshenija malorossijskogo dukhovenstva s moskovskim pravitel’stvom v tsarstvovanie Alekseja Mikhajlovicha, ch. 1, Moskva, 1899: 229.

118 Galjatovs’kyj I., Kljuch rozuminnja, pidh. I. P. Chepiha, Kyïv, Naukova dumka, 1985: 56.

119 Akty JuZR, t. 8 (1668-1669, 1648-1657), SPb, 1875: 15.

120 Mytsyk Ju., Hadjats’kyj dohovir 1658 r. u vysvitlenni ukraïns’kykh litopystsiv, in: Hadjats’ka unija 1658 roku: 270.

121 Sofonovych, F., Khronika z litopystsiv starodavnikh, pidh. Ju. A. Mytsyk, V. M. Kravchenko, Kyïv, Naukova dumka, 1992: 235.

122 More on this see in: Jakovenko N., Kyïvs’ki profesory za lashtunkamy Hadjats’koï uhody (pro sprobu peretvorennja Mohyljans’koï kolehiï na universytet), in: 350-lecie Unii Hadziackiej: 305-326.

123 Jerlicz J., Latopisiec abo Kroyniczka: 233.

124 Jemiołowski M., Pamiętnik dzieje Polski zawierający (1648-1679), opr. J. Dzięgielewski, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Dig, 2000: 261.

125 «In libertate nati sumus, in libertate educati, do tejże i teraz liberi przystępujemy». Quoted after: Barłowska M., Mowa poselska Jerzego Niemirycza, in: W kręgu Hadziacza: 322.

126 Jerlicz J., Latopisiec abo Kroyniczka: 232

127 Quoted after: Kubala L., Wojny duńskie a pokój oliwski: 253.

128 Arkhiv JuZR, ch. 2, t. 2: 90-91, 110-111.

129 Ibid., 497. More on this see in: Kamiński A., The Cossack Experiment in Szlachta Democracy in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: the Hadiach (Hadziacz) Union, «harvard Ukrainian Studies», 1977, vol. 1, n. 2: 196-197.

Auteur

Professor of History at the National University of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Ukraine. She is the author of seminal studies on the history, culture and worldview of the Ukrainian nobility in the 16th-17th centuries. Her interpretation of the processes in this period has succesfully challenged accepted schemes.

Acheter

Volume papier

amazon.fr