Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T07:10:36.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three Attempts at Federation in 17th Century Eastern Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

George P. Kulchycky
George P. Kulchycky*
Affiliation:
Youngstown State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The title is indicative of the outcome of the federative experiment in Eastern Europe between Ukraine and its strong neighbors Muscovy, Poland, and the Ottoman Empire. It should be pointed out at the outset that the idea of federation was adopted by the Ukrainian state not for the sake of federation but as a deterrent against strong neighbors, who despite serious setbacks continued to interfere with Ukrainian sovereignty. This was in effect the only option left to the Ukrainians considering the internal and external developments prior to and after the death of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytskyi.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , Fall 1981 , pp. 207 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 by the Association for the Study of the Nationalities (USSR and East Europe) Inc. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Mass., 1959). pp. 303–304.Google Scholar

2. Mykola Arkas, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusi (Cracow, 1912), p. 13. C. Bickford O'Brien in Muscovy and the Ukraine: From the Pereiaslav Agreement to the Truce of Andrusovo, 1654–1667, (Berkeley, Cal., 1963) p. 126, feels that under Khmelnytskyi “something akin to a Ukrainian national state came into being.”Google Scholar

3. Arkas, Istoriia, p. 17. See also Sokrat Ivanytskyi, Pereiaslavskyi dohovir z 1654 roku (New York, 1963), pp. 78–79.Google Scholar

4. Arkas, Istoriia, p. 17.Google Scholar

5. Oleksander Ohloblyn, Dumky pro suchasnu ukrains'ku soviets'ku istoriohrafiiu, (New York, 1963), p. 53.Google Scholar

6. Roman Bzheskyi, Pereiaslavs'ka umova v plianakh B. Khmelnyts'koho ta “Pereiaslavs'ka Legenda,” (Toronto, 1954), p. 25.Google Scholar

7. Mykhailo I. Braichevs'kyi (Translated and edited by G. Kulchycky) Annexation or Reunification: Critical Notes on One Conception, (Munich, 1974), p. 73.Google Scholar

8. Ohloblyn, Dumky, p. 57.Google Scholar

9. Mykhailo Hrushevskyi, Ocherk istorii ukrainskago naroda, (St. Petersburg, 1906), p. 276.Google Scholar

10. Teodor Mackiv, “Anhliiskyi text Zborivskoho dohovoru z 1649,” Ukrains'kyi istoryk, Nos. 1–3, 1970, p. 119.Google Scholar

11. Arkas, Istoriia, pp. 15–16, 21–22.Google Scholar

12. Ibid., p. 16.Google Scholar

13. Ibid., pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

14. There were many occasions when the Tatars showed their unreliability as an ally. Near Zbarazh when Khmelnytskyi had the Poles completely at his mercy the Tatars fearing that Khmelnytskyi would become too powerful forced him to accept a compromise with the Poles. The result of this compromise was the Zboriv Agreement of August 18, 1649. Because neither side was satisfied with the agreement war soon broke out again. Another example of Tatar unreliability may be seen during the Battle of Berestechko in 1651 when the Khan left the scene of battle during its height, and more important took Khmelnytskyi hostage. The result was defeat for the Ukrainian forces. On several occasions during P. Doroshenko's reign the Tatars proved to be poor allies and the Sultan had to remove several Khans from office.Google Scholar

15. G. F. Muller, Istoricheskiia socheneniia o Malorossii i Malorossianakh (Moscow, 1846) p. 12.Google Scholar

16. Bzheskyi, Pereiaslavs'ka, pp. 8–11.Google Scholar

17. Ivan Krypiakevych, Velyka istoriia Ukrainy, (Winnipeg, 1948) p. 474.Google Scholar

18. Bzheskyi, Pereiaslav'ka, p. 6.Google Scholar

19. Ibid., p. 15. In Poland at this time there appeared an article that was insulting to the Tsar. The Muscovites sought an apology which the Poles were reluctant to give.Google Scholar

20. Ibid., p. 17. See also Heorhiy Konyskyi, Istoriia Rusiv, (New York, 1957), p. 163.Google Scholar

21. Ivanytskyi, Pereiaslavs'kyi, p. 81.Google Scholar

22. Olexander Ohloblyn, Treaty of Pereyaslav 1654, (Toronto, 1954), pp. 77–80.Google Scholar

23. Ibid., pp. 83–89. C. Bickford O'Brien in Muscovy and the Ukraine (1963), agrees that events in Eastern Europe dictated the signing of the Pereislav Agreement. He states that “Ukraine had to accept temporarily the suzerainty of one or more of them (major powers GK) without abandoning the goal of independence.” (p. 127). That the document was less than perfect and riddled with ambiguities (p. 131) was not the fault of the Russians but of Khmelnytskyi and his advisors. By his encroachments on Ukrainian freedoms, O'Brien states, “the tsar was pursuing a course that was widely accepted at the time as promoting the “interest of the state.” (p. 128).Google Scholar

24. Bzeskyi, Pereiaslavs'ka, pp. 20–21.Google Scholar

25. O. Ohloblyn, Khmelnychchyna i ukrains'ka derzhavnist, (New York, 1954), p. 11.Google Scholar

26. Braichevskyi, Annexation, p. 11.Google Scholar

27. Ibid., p. 12. See also I. Krypiakevych and I. Butych, Dokumenty Bohdana Khmelnytskoho, (Kiev, 1961) p. 316. Document 227 dated January 7 (17) 1654 written by B. Khmelnytskyi to Tsar Alexis is characterized as a letter of thanks to Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich for “reunifying” Ukraine with Russia at a time when the actual document has no mention of any union let alone “reunion.”Google Scholar

28. Hrushevskyi, Ocherk, p. 264.Google Scholar

29. Bzheskyi, Pereiaslavs'ka, p. 18. See also Ivanytskyi, Pereiaslavskyi, pp. 72–73.Google Scholar

30. Ivanytskyi, Pereiaslavs'kyi, p. 47.Google Scholar

31. Ohloblyn, Treaty, p. 87.Google Scholar

32. Krypiakevych, Velyka istoriia, p. 475. See also Bzheskyi, Pereiaslavska, p. 22.Google Scholar

33. S. Kylymnyk, “Moskovsko-ukrainska viina,” Visnyk, N. 4, 1959, p. 9.Google Scholar

34. Hrushevskyi, Ocherk, p. 267.Google Scholar

35. Bzheskyi, Pereiaslavs'ka, p. 24. See also Mykola Kostomariv's Istoriia Ukrainy, (Lviv, 1918) p. 311.Google Scholar

36. Ibid., pp. 25, 26.Google Scholar

37. Krypiakevych, Velyka istoriia, p. 479.Google Scholar

38. Bzheskyi, Pereiaslavs'ka, p. 23.Google Scholar

39. Hrushevskyi, Ocherk, p. 269. See also Kosto Mariv, Istoriia, p. 311.Google Scholar

40. Ia. Dzyra, ed. Litopys Samovydcia (Kiev, 1971), p. 76.Google Scholar

41. Hrushevskyi, Ocherk, p. 284.Google Scholar

42. Arkas, Istoriia, p. 226.Google Scholar

43. Ibid., pp. 483, 227.Google Scholar

44. Ibid., p. 227.Google Scholar

45. Kylymnyk, “Moskovsko-ukrainska,” p. 8.Google Scholar

46. Krypiakevych, Velyka, p. 484.Google Scholar

47. Ibid., p. 485.Google Scholar

48. Bzheskyi, Pereiaslavs'ka, p. 12. See also Kylymnyk, “Moskovsko-ukrainska,” No. 5, pp. 9–10.Google Scholar

49. Kylymnyk, Ibid, No. 4, p. 12.Google Scholar

50. Arkas, Istoriia …, p. 228.Google Scholar

51. Kylymnyk, “Moskovsko-ukrainska,” p. 13.Google Scholar

52. Ibid., No. 5, p. 10. See also his “Vid Konotopu — do Poltavy,” Vyzvolnyi Shliakh, No. 8, 1959, p. 854.Google Scholar

53. Zygmunt Andrzejowski, et al., Pamietnik Kijowski, (London, 1959) p. 57. For a discussion of the negotiation and ceremonies in the Sejm see S. Mishko Hadiatskyi Dohovir, (Detroit, 1959), pp. 1–3.Google Scholar

54. Braichevskyi, Annexation, p. 82. See also Kylymnyk, “Moskovsko-ukrainska,” No. 5, p. 11.Google Scholar

55. Oscar Halecki, Borderlands of Western Civilization: A History of East Central Europe, (New York, 1952), p. 209. See also Krypiakevych, Velyka, pp. 488–489; Kylymnyk “Vid Konotopu,” p. 84. For a good discussion of the provisions of Hadiach as well as the authentic texts see M. Hrushevskyi, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy, vol. X, (New York, 1958), pp. 331–345.Google Scholar

56. Iurii Tys-Krokhmaliuk, “Biy pid Konotopom,” Vyzvolnyi Shliakh, No. 2, 1958, pp. 178–181. See also Dzyra, Litopys Samovydcia, pp. 79–80; Kostomariv, Istoriia, pp. 322–323, and Samiilo Velychko, Skazanie o voine kozatskoi z poliakami, pp. 203–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57. Oleksander Iakovlev, “Statti Bohdana Khmelnytskoho v redaktsii 1659 roku,” Iuvileinyi zbirnyk na poshanu Akademika Mykhaila Serhievycha Hrushevskoho, vol. I, (Kiev, 1928), p. 194. For the treatment received by Iurii Khmelnytskii in the Russian camp see Sbornyk Litopisei otnoshisia k’ istorii iuzhnoi i zapadnoi Rusi, (Kiev, 1888), p. 20.Google Scholar

58. Kylymnyk, “Vid Konotopu,” No. 11, 1960, p. 1232.Google Scholar

59. Halecki, Borderlands, pp. 227–228. O'Brien on p. 126 refers to Andrusovo as a “turning point in the relationship of Muscovy and the Ukraine.”Google Scholar

60. Bzheskyi, Pereiaslavs'ka, p. 10. See also Sbornyk, pp. 27–28.Google Scholar

61. George Kulchyckyj, “Ukraine a Vassal State of Turkey,” Feniks, No. 14, 1966, p. 52.Google Scholar

62. Ibid., p. 55. See also Kylymnyk, “Vid Konotopu,” No. 12, 1960, pp. 1364–1635.Google Scholar

63. Kulchyckyj, “Ukraine,” p. 51.Google Scholar

64. Konysko, Istoriia, p. 224.Google Scholar

65. Kulchyckyj, “Ukraine,” p. 52.Google Scholar

66. Ibid., p. 55.Google Scholar

67. Oleh Cylevych, Prychynky do znosyn Petra Doroshenka z Polshcheiu v 1670-2, (Lviv, 1898), p. 24. This interesting work demonstrates censorship at work. The pages cut out by the censor were printed blank by the Shevchenko Scientific Society to demonstrate the frivolity of the Polish controlled censors’ office in Galicia.Google Scholar

68. Demetrius Centemir, The History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1683, (London, 1734), p. 264.Google Scholar

69. Dmytro Doroshenko, History of the Ukraine, (Edmonton, Canada, 1939), p. 321.Google Scholar