Notes

CHAPTER I

1. For a survey of the historiography on Mazepa see D. Doroshenko, “Mazepa v istorychnii Iiteraturi ³ v zhytti,” in Zbirnyk I, pp. 3-34 and D. Kravtsov, “Hetman Mazepa v ukrainskii istoriohrafii XIXv.,” inZapysky IstoTyko-Jilolohichnoho viddilu Ukrainskoi Akademii nauk VI (1925), pp.

2. Cf. R. Merriman, Six Contemporaneous Revolutions (Oxford, 1938).

3. For Trevor-Roper’s views and those of his critics see T. Aston, ed., Crisis in Europe, 1560-1660 (London, 1965).

4. For a penetrating discussion of this issue see O. Brunner, “Die Frei- heitsrechte in der altstandischen Gesellschaft,” in Verfassungund Landes- geschichte: Festschrift fur Th. Mayer I (1954), pp. 294-303.

5. See A. Kaminski, “The Cossack Experiment in Szlachta Democracy in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: The Hadiach (Hadiacz) Union,” HUS, 1,2 (1977), pp. 178-197, N. A. Mokhov, Moldaviaepokhi feodalizma (Kishinev, 1964), pp. 3O7ff. and R. Wittram, Baltische Geschichte (Miinich- Oldenburg, 1954), pp. 77-89.

6. See Merriman, Revolutions, passim.

7. This point is made in “Donoshenie Kochubeia Gosudariu,” April, 1708, Istochniki, p. 106.

8. A cogent discussion of this question is E. Lemberg, Geschichte des Nationalismus in Europa (Hamburg, 1964), I, pp. 98-101.

9. For the activity of these political emigres see S. Ciobanu, Dimitrie Cantemir in Rusia (Bucarest, 1925); G. Szekfii, A szdmuzδtt Rdkoczi (Budapest, 1913); Y. Erdmann, Johann Reinhold von Patkul (Berlin, 1970); J. Feldman, Stanislaw Leszjczynski (Wroclaw-Poznan, 1948) and Krupnytskyi, Hetman Pylyp Orlyk (1672-1742).

10. A thorough and non-partisan review of the many different opinions about the nature of the Pereiaslav Treaty is O. E. Gunther, “Der Vertrag von Pereiaslav im Widerstreit der Meinungen,” Jahrbucherfiir Geschichte Osteuropas (1954), pp. 232-257.

11. A description of this tense moment may be found in M. Hrushev- skyi, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusi (New York, 1957), IX, 1, p. 740.

12. The rise of the stars hyna-nobi∖ity is thoroughly treated in L. Okin- shevych, Znachne υiiskoυe tovarystvo v Ukraini-Hetmanshchyni v XVIl- XVlII w. in Pratsi istorychno-fHosofichnoi sektsii ZNTSh_f CLVII (Mu­nich, 1948). Also see D. Miller, “Ocherki iz istorii ³ iuridicheskago byta staroi Malorossii. Prevrashchenie kozatskoi starshiny v dvorianstvo,” KSt I (1897), pp. 1-31, II, pp. 188-220, III, pp. 351-374, IV, pp. 1-47.

13. This estimate is based on the numbers of Cossack officers listed in

I. K. Kirilov, Tsvetushchee sostoianie Vserossiiskogo gosudarstva (Mos­cow, 1977), pp. 160-170.

14. Hrushevskyi, Istoria Ukrainy-Rusi_f IX, 2, p. 1417.

15. Cf. O. Pritsak, “Das erste Uirkisch-Ukrainische Biindnis,” Oriens_f VI (1953), pp. 266-298.

16. Cf. K. A. Sofronenko, Malorossiiskii prikaz russkago gosudarstva vtoroi poloviny XVIl ³ nachala XVIlIveka (Moscow, 1960). It is striking to see how limited were the prerogatives of the Malorossiiskii Prikazas com­pared to those of the Prikaz of Kazan. See M. Rywkin, “The Prikazoi the Kazan Court: First Russian Colonial Office,” Canadian Slavonic Papers (1976), 3, pp. 293-300.

17. TsGADA, knigi Malorossiiskago prikaza, no. 65, fol. 112 as quoted by V. A. Diadychenko, Narysy suspilno-politychnoho ustroiu Iivoberezh- noi Ukrainy kin XVII-pochatku XVIIl st. (Kiev, 1959), p. 103.

18. See P. Miliukov, Gosudarstvennoe khoziaistvo Rossii v. pervoi chet- verti XVIII Stoletiia ³ reforma Petra Velikago_f 2ded. (St. Petersburg, 1905), p.

19. The number of Russian tr∞ps in Ukraine reached a high of about 12,000 in the mid 1660s but later it fell to as low as 1,900. Ibid. The number of Ukrainian Cossack troops was between 30-40,000. Cf. O. M. Apano- vych, Zbroini syly Ukrainy pershoi pol. XVIll st. (Kiev, 1969).

20. The Tsar would never again be able to raise such a huge levee of his dvoriane. Upon learning of the outcome of the battle Aleksei Mikhailovich appeared in mourning and Muscovites panicked for fear of an impending invasion by the Ukrainian Cossacks and their Tatar allies. See Soloviev, VI, pp. 49-51.

21. See la. I. Dzyra, Litopys samovydtsia (Kiev, 1971), p. 146.

22. For a discussion of Mazepa’s background see Ohloblyn, pp. 10-14.

23. Cf. B. Krupnytskyi, “Miscellanea Mazepiana,” Zbirnyk I, pp. 88-92.

24. Ohloblyn, p. 13.

25. See H. Babinski, The Mazeppa Legend in European Romanticism (New York, 1974).

26. The problem of the Right Bank at the end of the 17th and early 18th centuries is discussed in Ohloblyn, pp. 196-244.

27. Cf. D. M. Bantysh-Kamenskii, Istoriia Maloirossii, 4th ed. (Kiev, 1903), pp. 338-343.

28.Ibid., p. 340.

29. For the details of Mazepa’s first meeting with Peter I see Kostomarov, p. 38.

30.See below, p. 59.

CHAPTER II

1. For data concerning the population of Left Bank Ukraine see V. M. Kabuzan, Izmeneniia v razmeshchenii naseleniia Rossii (Moscow, 1971), p. 52. A study of the Ukrainian Cossack army is Apanovych, Zbroini syly Ukrainy. For a study of the socio-economic and administrative aspects of the Hetmanate or Left Bank Ukraine, see Diadychenko, Narysy suspilno- Politychnoho ustroiu.

2. An analysis of the systematic changes introduced into the Periaslav Treaty is A. Iakovliv, Ukrainsko-Moskovski dohovory v XV11-XVII1 vi- kakh (Warsaw, 1934), vol. XX of Pratsi.

3. Ohloblyn, p. 261.

4. “Ukaz vsemu Malorossiiskomu narodu,” 6 November 1708, Pisma ³ bumagi, VIII, 2, p. 276.

5. Peter I to Mazepa, 24 June 1707, Istochniki, p.

6. Kostomarov, pp. 242-265 and Ohloblyn, pp. 251-258.

7. Orlyk to Iavorskyi, Appendix, p. 179.

8. The tension between these two ambitious men was intense. Mazepa’s chancellor, Pylyp Orlyk, felt that the Hetman’s hatred of Menshikov was one of the chief reasons for his defection (Diariusz, X, fols. 94 and 118). Also see Orlyk’s letter to Iavorskyi, Appendix, p. 183 and Kostomarov, pp. 293-296. Also see G. Georgievskii, “Mazepa ³ Menshikov. Novye materi- aly,” Istoricheskii Zhurnal, 12 (1940), pp. 72-84.

9. Orlyk to Iavorskyi, Appendix, pp. 180, 188.

10. Orlyk to Iavorskyi, Appendix, p. 184.

11. Ibid., p. 183.

12. Ibid., p. 185. The statement was made by Dmytro Horlenko, colonel of Pryluky.

13. On the recommendation of Peter I, Mazepa received the title of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire on 1 September 1707. Cf. T. Mackiw, “Mazepa’s Title: Prince of the Holy Roman Empire,’’ Nationalities Pa­pers, VII, 1 (1979), pp. 95-100. Mazepa also received the Order of the White Eagle from August II in 1705.

14. Cf. Soloviev, VIII, p. 161.

15. Orlyk to Iavorskyi, Appendix, p. 182.

16. Ibid., p. 183.

17. Ibid., p. 191.

18. This argument is treated at length in my article “Mazepa, Peter I and the Question of Treason,’’ HUS, II, 2 (1979), pp. 170ff.

19. Cf. “Razgovor Hetmana Mazepy s Diakom Borisom Mikhailovim î raznykh tainykh delakh,” 28 March 1701, Istochniki, pp. 30-35 and Kosto­marov, pp. 267-268.

20. “Instruktsiia sekretnaia,” Istochniki, p. 50.

21. Cf. Orlyk to Iavorskyi, Appendix, p. 180. A thorough study of the Hetman’s relations with Princess Dolska is O. Pritsak, “Hetman Ivan Mazepa ³ kn. Anna Dolska,” Zbirnyk, II, pp. 102-117.

22. Orlyk to Iavorskyi, Appendix, p. 191.

23. Cf. Trudy Imperatorskago russkago voenno-istorieheskago obsh- chestva, III (St. Petersburg, 1909), p. 276.

24. Ibid., p. 314.

25. Letopisnoe poυestυoυanie î Maloi Rossii, part III in Chtenιia (Mos­cow, 1847), p. 52.

26.

27. Ibid., pp. 26-27. Also see M. Andrusiak, “Zviazky Mazepy z Stanis- Iavom Leshchynskym ³ Karlom XII,” ZNTSh, CLII (1933), pp. 35-61.

28. “Dopros Apostola,” December 1708, Istochniki, p. 214.

29. Cf. Orlyk to Iavorskyi, Appendix, p. 195. Originals of this manifesto are in AGAD, Archiwum Potockich, No. 56.

30. Orlyk to Iavorskyi, Appendix, p. 188.

31. “Dogavor mezhdu Orlykom ³ voiskom zaporozhskim,” 5 April 1710, Istochniki, p. 242.

32. Ohloblyn, pp. 281-282.

33. Orlyk to Iavorskyi, Appendix, p. 183.

34. Kayserling to King Fredrich I, 31 January 1709 in B. Krupnytskyi, “Z donesen Kayserlinga, 1708-1709,” in Zbirnyk, II, p. 33.

35. For a study of Mazepa’s ties with the ecclesiastical elite of Ukraine see M. Andrusiak, “Hetman Mazepa iak kulturnyi diiach,” Zbirnyk, II, pp. 69-87. Also see Ohloblyn, pp. 158-160.

36. Cf. I. Borshchak, “Vyvid prav Ukrainy,” Stara Ukraina, I-II (Lviv, 1925), pp. 1-14. For an English translation see “Pylyp Orlyk’s Devolution of the Ukraine’s Rights,” Annals VI, 3-4 (1958), pp. 1296-1312.

37. Krupnytskyi, “Plany Mazepy,” p. 103 and Andrusiak, “Zviazky Mazepy,” p. 59. See also M. Hrushevskyi, “Shvedsko-ukrainskyi soiuz 1708,” ZNTSh, XCII (1909), pp. 7-20. For an excellent study of Swedish- Ukrainian contacts during this period see B. Kentrschynskyj, Mazepa (Lund, 1966) especially pages 333 ff. Very useful is R. Hatton, Charles XII of Sweden (New York, 1968), pp. 276-289.

38. During my visit to Dinteville in August 1971 its owner, Comte De la Ville-Beuge, and I could not find any document resembling the “Deduc­tion.” Moreover, Comte De la Ville-Beuge informed me that Borshchak had never visited Dinteville and only used some documents which its owners showed him in Paris.

39. Cf. Kostomarov, p. 515. For a somewhat different version see G. Adlerfelt, Histoire Militaire de Charles XII, roi de Suede (Amsterdam, 1740), IV, p. 8 and Kentrschynskyj, Mazepa, p.

40. Orlyk to Iavorskyi, Appendix, pp. 192-193.

41. Sieniawski to Mazepa, 27 January 1708, Czart., 25074. The Polish magnate informed the Hetman about the “gossip” which circulated in Poland about Mazepa’s secret ties with the enemy.

42. In 1705, before the Kochubei-Iskra affair, Mazepa informed the Tsar of four “temptations” which had come his way: one was from Sobieski, another from the Crimean Khan, the third was from the Don Cossacks and the fourth was from the Swedes and Leszczynski, that is, the affair with Wolski. Cf. Mazepa to Peter I, 18 October 1705, Istochniki, pp. 48-50.

43. Cf. O. Subtelny, On the Eve of Poltava: The Letters of Ivan Mazepa to Adam Sieniawski, 1704-1708 (New York, 1975) for the dangerous game which the Ukrainian Hetman and the Polish magnate played at this time.

44. See S. Tomashivskyi, ed., “Lysty Petra Velykoho do A. M. Syniav- skoho,” ZNTSh, XCII (1909), pp. 194-238. While these two politicians were tempting each other, they also denounced each other to the Tsar. Cf. Kostomarov, pp. 343-345.

45. A. I. Dashkov to G. I. Golovkin, 11 December 1708, Pisma ³ bumagi, VIII, 2, p. 868. Dashkov also suspected that Sieniawski might still be in secret contact with Mazepa.

46. Orlyk to Iavorskyi, Appendix, p. 196.

47. For a discussion of Kochubei’s motives see Ohloblyn, pp. 288-300.

48. Mazepa’s love letters to Motria Kochubei may be found in Istoch- niki, pp. 127-130.

49. For a full text of Kochubei’s and Iskra’s denunciation of Mazepa see “Donoshenie Kochubeia Gosudariu postatiamy,” April, 1708, Istochniki, pp. 98-111.

50. Kochubei and Iskra were executed on 14 July 1708. Cf. the report of Veliaminov-Zernov in Istochniki, pp. 138-140.

51. The widely scattered disposition of Cossack tr∞ps was described in Mazepa’s letter to the Tsar, 4 August 1708, Pisma ³ bumagi, VIII, 2, pp. 526-527.

52. Kostomarov, p. 435.

53. Hatton, p. 277.

CHAPTER III

1. Peter I to F. M. Apraksin, 30 October 1708, Pisma ³ bumagi, VII, 2, p. 253. Menshikov first informed the Tsar about Mazepa’s defection. Cf. Menshikov to Peter I, 24 October 1708, Pisma ³ bumagi, VIII, 2, p. 864.

2. Cf. O. Hrushevskyi, ⁰Rozkvartyrovannia rosiiskykh polkiv na Ukraini,” ZNTSh, LXXVII (1907), pp. 5-25.

3. For the arrests of the Mazepists and the confiscation of their lands see O. Hrushevskyi, “Po katastrofi 1708: konfiskatsiia zemel u mazepynt- siv,” ZNTSh_f LXXVIII (1908), pp. 85-95 and “Hlukhiv ³ Lebedyn,” ZNTSh XCII (1909), pp. 21-65.

4. Peter I to Menshikov, 27 October 1708, Pisma ³ bumagi_f VIII, 1, p. 237.

5. Russian suspicions were reflected in the letter of A. I. Dashkov to G. I. Golovkin, 11 December 1708, Ibid._f VIII, 2, p. 869. Dashkov wrote that “If Skoropadskyi is elected Hetman, it will be necessary to watch him carefully because he is the creature of Mazepa; the latter established him and enriched him.’’ Also cf. Ohloblyn, p. 317.

6. See “Stati Gosudaria Petra I iavniia ³ tainiia Wizhnemu Stolniku Andreiu Izmailovu,” 18, 27, 30 July 1709, Istochniki_f pp. 228-231.

7. lbid._f p. 228.

8. Ibid._f p. 230.

9. For the significance of this ceremony see my article “Mazepa, Peter I and the Question of Treason,” HUS_f II, 2 (1978), pp. 178ff. For a descrip­tion of this ceremony see G. I. Golovkin to P. A. Tolstoi, 9 November 1708, 1 isma ³ bumagi_f VIII, 2, pp. 910-912.

10. The idea of subjecting Mazepa to anathema was proposed by G. I. Golovkin. Cf. Golovkin to Peter I, 11 November 1708, Pisma ³ bumagi_f VIII, 2, p. 932. Golovkin wrote: “I have concluded that it would be good if the Gosudar ordered the hierarchy and the entire clergy to issue an anathe­ma against the traitor Mazepa and those of the Starshyna who went with him. These published manifestoes should then be distributed throughout Ukraine and publicly read in the churches.’’

11. Cf. B. Kentrschynskyj, ^llPropogandakrigeti Ukraina, 1708-1709,” KFA (1958), pp. 81-124. For an English summary of this article see Ukrainian Quarterly XV (1959), pp. 241-259. Also cf. Subtelny, “The Question of Treason,” p. 173ff.

12. Kentrschynskyj, ^llPropogandakriget,” p. 92. For the Tsar’s annoy­ance about this propaganda and the fate of Hermelin see Hatton, p. 300.

13. D. M. Golitsyn to Peter I, 21 November 1708, Pisma ³ bumagi_f VIII, 2, p. 947. The Russian commander complains that Mazepa’s agents and manifestoes “mnogikh vozmutili.”

14. Menshikov to Peter I, 26 October 1708, lbid._f VIII, 2, p. 865.

15. See V. E. Shutoi, “Polityka rosiiskoho uriadu na Ukraini v period zymovoi kampanii 1708-1709 rokiv,” in 250-Rokiυ poltavskoi bytvy_f 1709- 1959 (Kiev, 1959), p. 94.

16. For Peter Γs manifestoes to the Ukrainian people see Pisma I bu- magi_f VIII, 1, pp. 244-245, 263-264, 276-284, and IX, 1, pp. 59-66.

17. Few of Mazepa’s manifestoes survived. One manifesto, issued in early 1709, may be found in C. J. Nordmann, Charles Xllet VUkraine de Mazepa (Paris, 1958), pp. 68-71. Excerpts from Mazepa¹Smanifetoesarein Kostomarov, pp. 467-470. Also see Mazepa to Skoropadskyi, 30 October 1708, Istochniki_f pp. 173-175.

18. Menshikov to Peter I, 26 October 1708, Pisma ³ bumagi_f VIII, 2, p. 865.

19. “Ukaz vsemu malorossiiskomu narodu,” 6 November 1708, Ibid., VIII, 1, p. 276.

20. Skoropadskyi’s Manifesto, 8 December 1708, Istochniki_f p. 198. This lengthy document contained a point-by-point rebuttal of Mazepa’s arguments.

21. Charles XIΓs Manifesto, 7 November 1708, lbid._f p. 207.

22. Mazepa’s Manifesto, early 1709, in Nordmann, Charles XII_f pp. 69- 70. Also see Pisma ³ bumagi_f IX, 2, pp. 614-615. Mazepa’s propaganda had a strong impact on the Right Bank. Cf. D. M. Golitsyn to Peter I, 21 November 1708, Pisma ³ bumagi_f VIII, 2, p. 947.

23. Orlyk to Iavorskyi, Appendix I, p. 191. This concern about the Tsar’s inability to fulfill his duty to protect Ukraine was emphasized by Mazepa in his letter to Skoropadskyi, in Istochniki_f p. 174. Cf. also Sub- telny, “The Question of Treason,” p. 170.

24. For example, see “Ukaz vsemu malorossiiskomu narodu,” 6 No­vember 1708, Pisma ³ bumagi_f pp. 280-281.

25. See Charles XIΓs Manifesto, 7 November 1708, Istochniki_f pp. 209- 210. Also Kostomarov, pp. 476, 485 and Soloviev, VIII, p. 252.

26. See p. 48.

27. Cf. B. Krupnytskyi, “Z donesen Kayserlinga, 1708-1709,” in Zbir- nyk_f II, p. 28. This comment was attributed to the Prussian envoy to Moscow, Johann Freiherr von Kayserling.

28. For a detailed list of Mazepa gifts to various churches and monas­teries see M. Vozniak, “Benderska komisiia po smerti Mazepy,” Zbirnyk_f II, pp. 130-131. Also see Ohloblyn, pp. 157-159. For a discussion of Ma­zepa’s relations with the church see B. Krupnytskyi, Hetman Mazepa und seine Zeit 1687-1709 (Leipzig, 1942), pp. 78-86 and M. Andrusiak, “Het­man Mazepa iak kulturnyi diiach,” Zbirnyk_f II, pp. 69-87.

29. Peter I was also unsure of support in such a key city as Kiev. Cf. the report of Golitsyn to G. I. Golovkin, 15 February 1709, Soloviev, VIII, p. 268 in which he states: “in all of Kiev I have found only one person, namely, the prefect of the Brotherhood monastery (Teofan Prokopovych) who has been affable to us.” Golitsyn also reported, in November of 1708, that the mayor (υiit) of Kiev, Dmytro Polotskyi, was aware of Mazepa’s plans.

30. See p. 8.

31. Almost all the members of the heneralna Starshyna followed Mazepa over to the Swedes. Among them were: Quartermaster-General Ilia Lo- mykovskyi, Judge-General Semen Chuikevych, Chancellor Pylyp Orlyk, Adjutant-General Antin Hamaliia, Standardbearer-General Ivan Sulyma, Macebearer-General Dmytro Maksymovych. Also 7 of 12 colonels went with Mazepa: Dmytro Horlenko, colonel of Pryluky, Danylo Apostol, colonel of Myrhorod, Dmytro Zelenskyi, colonel of Lubny, Andrii Kandy- ba, colonel of Korsun, and the three colonels of the mercenaries, Hnat Galagan, Iurii Kozhukhovskyi, and Andriiash. Even though they did not join Mazepa it was widely known that Ivan Levenets, colonel of Poltava, and Skoropadskyi of Starodub also sympathized with Mazepa’s cause. So did Pavlo Polubotok, colonel of Chernyhiv. However, personal animosity to Mazepa blocked any cooperation between the two men. Moreover, in the Pryluky regiment alone, 9 of 9 captains went over to the Swedes. For reports of deserters about the plight of these men in the Swedish camp see Pisma ³ bumagi, VIII, 2, pp. 1047-1051.

32. For Peter Γs manifesto to the Starshyna which followed Mazepa see “Ukaz voiskovoi Starshyne ushedshei s Mazepoi ê Shvedam,” 1 November 1708, Ibid., VIII, 1, pp. 266-268. Also see Kostomarov, pp. 480-481 for the friendly manner in which the Tsar received the returning starshyna.

33. For correspondence in this affair see Golovkin and Apostol to Ma­zepa, 22 December 1708, Istochniki, pp. 212-213. Cf. also Kostomarov, pp. 481-485.

34. Cf. Shutoi, Borba narodnykh mass protiυ nashestυiia armii Karla XII1700-1709 (Moscow, 1958) and B. Krupnytskyi, “Shvedy ³ naselennia na Ukraini v 1708-1709 rr,” Zbrinyk, II, pp. 13-23. Shutoi estimates that the Swedes lost about 15,000 men prior to Poltava (p. 445). However, Hatton (p. 287) estimates that while the Swedes lost about 20% of their men, that is, 5,000 men prior to Poltava, the Russians lost abou 33% of their men.

35. Cf. Pisma ³ bumagi, VIII, 1, p.

36. For the Swedish incursion into the Slobodas see Shutoi, Borba, pp. 343-358, Ohloblyn, 340-343, and Hatton, p. 283. When the Swedessetout for the Russian held territory, Mazepa remarked to the effect that they were now entering Asia (Shutoi, Borba, p. 353).

37. In addition to Evarnytskii’s basic work, recent studies of the Zapo- rozhians are V. A. Golubutskii, Zaporozhskoe kazachestυo (Kiev, 1957) and by the same author Zaporizhska sich υ ostanni chasy svoho isnuυannia (Kiev, 1961). Also see N. Polonska-Vasylenko, Istoriia Ukrainy (Munich, 1976), II, pp. 120-138.

38. The Zaporozhians' violent protests against the construction of these forts which were built under Mazepa’s direction and then occupied by about 1000 Russian troops are described in Evarnytskii, III, pp. 48-54.

39. Peter issued special instructions regarding the Zaporozhians: “the Zaporozhians should be treated as well as possible; if they act as enemies and it is impossible to win them over by kindness then they should be treated as traitors,’’ Peter I to Menshikov, 1 March 1709, Pisma ³ bumagi, IX, 1, p. 107. Also see Shutoi, Borba, pp. 373-376, 379.

40. Cf. Evarnytskii, III, pp. 362, 389 ff, 409, for a discussion of Hordien- ko’s anti-Russian attitudes.

41. Kostomarov, p. 520, and Evarnytskii, III, p. 416, cite the figure of 15,000. If the anti-Russian partisans did reach such numbers they were probably mobs of peasants who did not pose any major threat to the Rus­sians. Traditionally the Poltava regiment had close ties with the Zapo- rozhians and it was there that Petryk found his strongest support in his anti-Russian campaigns.

42. Gen. Ronne to Peter, 30 March 1709, Pisma ³ bumagi, IX, 2, p. 784.

43. Evarnytskii, III, p. 420.

44. For Mazepa’s ties with the Ottomans and Tatars and their greatest interest in his defection see Pisma ³ bumagi, IX, 2, pp. 689-690. Fedir Myrovych, the son of the former colonel of Pereiaslav and Hryhor Hertsyk, the son of the former colonel of Poltava, were sent by Mazepa on missions to the Tatars and Ottomans. Cf. Ohloblyn, pp. 338-340.

45. For the ties of the Ukrainian Cossacks with the Don see O. Hermaize, “Ukraina ta Din u XVII st.,” pp. 16-28.

46. The attack on the Zaporozhian Sich is described at length in Evar- nytskii, III, pp. 38-44 and Shutoi, Borba, pp. 385-388.

47. For the Tsar’s lengthy explanation why the Sich had to be destroyed see his manifesto of 17 May 1709, Pisma ³ bumagi, IX, I, pp. 181-184. On this occasion Teofan Prokopovych wrote his poem “The RepentantZapo- rozhian” which reads in part:

What am I to do, I know not,

But to perish in obscurity:

I have wandered in impenetrable forests, In hungry, arid lands;

Atamans and hetmans,

I have fallen prey to your deceptions....

We have used the translation which appears in Cracraft, ”Prokopovyc^,s Kiev Period Reconsidered,” HUS II (1978), no. 2, p. 156.

48. The Ukrainian Cossacks, both on the side of Peter I and of Charles XII, played a relatively minor role at Poltava. This was an indication that they were no longer considered to be main force units in modern warfare. For descriptions of their role see Ohloblyn, p. 355 and Shutoi, Borba, p. 423.

49. Cf. Hatton, pp. 301-306 and Kostomarov, pp. 565-570.

50. For a description of the flight of Charles XII and Mazepa to the Ottoman borders see Hatton, pp. 309-310 and Evarnytskii, pp. 464 ff. and Kostomarov, pp. 571-580.

CHAPTER IV

1. For studies of the Bender period from the Ukrainian, Swedish and Polish points of view see Kostomarov, pp. 595-596, Krupnytskyi, pp. 9-86, Hatton, pp. 307-380 and J. Feldman, Polska a sprawa wschodnia 1709- 1714 (Cracow, 1926).

2. This estimate is based on the fact that in 1713 Horlenko requested 30 safe conduct passes for “notables” among the Ukrainians who wanted to return home. Since about 15 members of the Starshyna decided not to return, the total number of Starshyna was about 45. Cf. Kostomarov, p. 669.

3. Ibid., p. 571.

4. K. Dmitriev to P. A. Tolstoi, 12 December 1710, Pisma ³ bumagi, X, 2, p. 771. This estimate is based on a report of a Russian spy in Bender.

5. For a discussion of the Zaporozhians during this period see Evar- nytskii, III, pp. 510-534. Also see Polonska-Vasylenko, Istoriia Ukrainy, II, pp. 122-125.

6. Krupnytskyi, p. 25. This estimate is based on Swedish sources.

7. G. I. Kropotov to Peter I, 16 August 1710, Pisma ³ bumagi, X, 2, p. 506.

8. Orlyk to Iavorskyi, Appendix, p. 196.

9. Krupnytskyi, p. 24.

10. This conflict among the Ukrainian emigres was examined in detail by M. Vozniak, “Benderska komisiia po smerti Mazepy, ” in Zbirnyk, I, pp. 134-161. Swedish reports about this episode may be found in V. Kordt, "Materialy z Stokholmskoho derzhavnoho arkhivu do istorii Ukrainy druhoi pol. XVII-poch. XVIII vv,” Ukrainskyi arkheOgrafichnyi zbirnyk, III (Kiev, 1930), pp. 19-55.

11. Vozniak, "Benderska komisiia,” p. 111.

12. A Swedish official, Gustav Soldan, registered the Hetman’s wealth shortly before the latter’s death. Cf. Kordt, "Materialy,” doc. VIII, pp. 44-45. Tales about Mazepa’s wealth spread far and wide. For example, Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations (New York, 1937), p. 414, noted: "the treasures of Mazepa, the chief of the Cossacks of the Ukraine, the famous ally of Charles XII, are said to have been very great.” My thanks to Dr. John-Paul Himka for bringing this passage to my attention.

13. Vozniak, "Benderska komisiia,” p. 128.

14. Ibid., p. 119.

15. Ibid., p. 120.

16. Ibid., p. 123.

17. Ibid., p. 122.

18. Kordt, "Materialy,” pp. 50-51. Also seeT. Westrin, "Antechningar om Karl XII: s Orientaliska kreditor,” Historiska Tidskrift, XX (1900), pp. 1-38.

19. Vozniak, p. 128.

20. Krupnytskyi’s Pylyp Orlyk is the most thorough study of Orlyk’s political activity. Unfortunately, Krupnytskyi did not have Orlyk’s diary or French and Polish archives available to him. Although Borshchak (see bibliography) had access to these sources, he used them so freely that he often misrepresented the content of the documents. While Krupnytskyfs and Borshchak’s studies were written, in varying degrees, in a pro-Orlyk spirit, the work by the Polish author, F. Rawita-Gawronski, "Filip Orlik, nieuznany hetman kozacki,” in Studya ³ szkice historyczne, I (Lwow, 1903), pp. 29-70 examined Orlyk’s activity from a critical point of view.

21.Orlyk to Charles XII, April, 1710, in Perepiska, p. 18.

22.Ibid., pp. 18-19.

23. See Krupnytskyi, “Rid Orlykiv,” Rid ³ Znamia (Kassel, 1947), pp. 1-4.

24.Diariusz, X, fol. 94.

25. A useful study of the Academy during this period is S. Golubev, Kievskaia akademiia v kontse XVII ³ nachale XVIIIStoletii (Kiev, 1901). A recent study is A. Sydorenko, The Kievan Academy in the 17th Century (Ottawa, 1977).

26. For the biography of Iavorskyi see A. Korolev’s article in Russki biograficheskii slovar, XIX (St. Petersburg, 1909), pp. 413-422. Also see J. Cracraft, The Church Reform of Peter the Great (London, 1971), pp. 122-126.

27. Cf. Dearte poetica IibriIIadusumet institutionem Studiosae juven- tutis Roxolanae dictati Kioviae in Orthodoxa Academia Mohyleana a.d. 1705, ed. by G. Koniskii (Mohyliv, 1786).

28. In this work Orlyk praised Mazepa for his care of the Orthodox in the Polish Commonwealth. Cf. Andrusiak, “Mazepa iakkulturnyidiiach,” pp. 82-83.

29. This panegyric, entitled Hippomenes Sarmacki, was published in Kiev. Cf. Rawita-Gawronski, Filip Orlik, p. 40.

30. The Hertsyks were one of several Starshyna families of Jewish origin. During the Khmelnytskyi period Semen Hertsyk was a merchant in Pol­tava and probably converted to Christianity. His son, Pavlo (d. 1700), also began his career as a merchant but then managed to enter the Starshyna and served several times as the colonel of Poltava. His sons loyally sup­ported Orlyk throughout their stay in exile.

31.Diariusz, X, fol. 91.

32. See Lazarevskii, “Zametki î Mazepe,” KSt, VI (1898), p. 397. See above, p. 151.

33.Rawita-Gawronski, Filip Orlik, p. 41.

34.Perepiska, p. 4.

35.Orlyk to Sapieha, 26 June 1728, Diariusz, X, fol. 95.

36. The Latin original of this document was published in Perepiska, pp. 1-17. We have used the Russian version in Istochniki, pp. 242-254. A study of this document is M. Vasylenko, “The Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk,” Annals, VI (1958), pp. 1260-1296.

37. “Dogovor ³ postanovlenie mezhdu Hetmanom Orlikom ³ voiskom Zaporozhskim v 1710” 5 April 1710, Istochniki, p. 242.

38.Ibid., p. 246.

39.Ibid.

40.Ibid., p. 247.

41.Ibid., p. 248.

42.Ibid., p. 251.

43.Ibid., p. 253.

44. Ibid.

CHAPTER V

1. Cf. S. F. Oreshkova, Russko-turetskie Otnosheniiav nachale XVIII V. (Moscow, 1971), p. 47 f. Also see S. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and of Modern Turkey (Cambridge, 1976), p. 203 ff.

2. Devlet Girei was born in ca. 1648. He ascended the throne for the first time in 1699 but was forced to abdicate in 1702; he returned to the throne in 1708 and again abdicated in 1713. In 1716 he was again on the throne for several months. For more details see V. D. Smirnov, Krymskoe Khanstvo podverkhovenstvom OttomanskoiPorty do nachala XVIIIveka (St. Petersburg, 1887), p. 696ff.

3. The relations between Charles XII and Devlet Girei were reported in detail by Sven Lagerberg, Sven Lagerbergs Dagbok under vistelsen hos Tatar-Chan Dowlet Gherey, 1710-1711 (Goteborg, 1896). Lagerbergwasa young Swedish officer who served as Charles XIΓs special envoy to the Tatar Khan.

4. There is no general study available of the relations, political or otherwise, between the Ukrainian Cossacks and the Tatars and Ottomans. Some of the major articles dealing with this subject are: B. Baranowski, “Geneza Sojuszu Kozacko-Tatarskiego z 1648 r,” Przeglad Historyczny, XXXVII (1948), pp. 276-287. O. Pritsak, “Das ErsteTurkisch-Ukrainische Biindnis (1648),” Oriens (1953), pp. 266-298. D. Doroshenko, “Polsko, Ukrajina, Krym a Vysoka Porta v prvni pol. XVII stol.” Casopis Narod- niho Musea I-II (1933), pp. 1-55.0. Ohloblyn, “Petryk, Khanskii Hetman Ukrainy (1692),” Zbirnyk lst.-Filol. Viddilu Vse-Ukrainskoi Aka. Nauk, 89 (1930), pp. 40-63. J. Kolmodin, “Mazepa ³ Turkiet. Debatten om hans och Karl XII s utlamnade,” Svensk Dagblatt, 16/1 (1925). P. Bartl, “Der Kosakenstaat und das Osmanische Reich im 17. und in der ersten Halfte des 18. Jahrhunderts," Sudostforschungen, XXXIII (1974), pp. 166-194.

5. For a discussion of this “Crimean orientation” among the Ukrainian Cossacks see Ohloblyn, pp. 265-267.

6. The Petryk episode has been thoroughly studied by O. Ohloblyn. See especially his “Dohovir Petra Ivanenka (Petryka) z Krymom 1692 roku” in Iuvileinyi zbirnyk na poshanu akad. D. I. Bahaliia (Kiev, 1927), pp. 720-744 and his Mazepa, pp. 163-195. Also see Evarnitskii, III, pp. 111-175.

7. Ohloblyn, “Dohovir,” p. 740.

8. Petryk to the Zaporozhians, 12 July 1692 in Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv feodalno-krCponostnicheskoi epokhi (Moscow), Malorossiiskie akty, no. 531 as cited in Ohloblyn, p. 179.

9. Orlyk to Devlet Girei, 20 October 1710, Perepiska, p. 28.

10. Appendix B, part I. In order to establish the points which recurred in Cossack-Tatar and Cossack-Ottoman treaties we have examined the following texts: O. Pritsak, “Das Erste Tiirkisch-Ukrainische Bundnis (1648),” pp. 266-298, which provides us with the text and the textual analysis of Khmelnytskyi’s maritime treaty with the Porte; the Doroshenko treaty with the Porte in AIuZR, VII (1875), pp. 218-220; Petryk’s treaty with the Tatars appears in Ohloblyn, “Petryk,” pp. 60-63. In addition to the Cossack desiderata and Cossack-Tatar treaty of 1711 we have also examined the Ottoman treaty of 1712, the text of which may be found in Perepiska, pp. 61-66.

11. See Baranowski, “Geneza sojuszu kozacko-ta tar skiego.”

12. In his “Literae Universales Regis Sueciae ad Ucrainenses” (Pere- piska, p. 34), Charles again repeated the guarantees which he made to the Hetman in his “Diploma Assecuratorium. ” In his letter Charlesdeclared “that we are angered by the very unfortunate lot of the famous people (of Ukraine) and are inclined and prepared to provide definite means to the end that Ukraine, repressed and hardly alive under the godless yoke of slavery, return to the state of former freedoms and immunities.”

13. Mazepa to Golovkin, no date, in F. Umanets, Hetman Mazepa (St. Petersburg, 1897), p. 232. For some IimeaftertheseeventsOrlykcontinued to feel that the Don Cossacks were the natural allies and compatriots of the Ukrainian Cossacks. (See Orlyk to Flemming, 2 July 1720, Sbornik, p. 60.) The general question of Ukraine’s ties with the Don is treated by O. Hermaize, “Ukraina ta Din u XVII St.,” Zapysky Kievskoho Instytuta Narod. Osvity, III, Kiev, 1928.

14. Appendix B, part II.

15. Ibid., p. 353.

16. Ibid., p. 354.

17. This was the opinion expressed in a report from Lagerberg to Miillern, one of Charles XIΓs ministers. 6 August 1711, Lagerberg's Dag- bok, p. 203.

18. Ibid., p. 48.

19. Three copies of the manifesto, in German, French and Latin, are in AAE Turquie, 51, fols. 8-17. The German copy which was translated from the Latin original, was published under the title: “Manifest des jungern sohns des Tartar Khans” (gegeben im Lager zu Benderden 28 Januar 1711 —aus dem Lateinischen iibersetzt); no place of publication given. Other copies may be found in Ossol. No. 253 II, fol. 284; AGAD, Archiwum Zamoyskich, 30361 Kozacy fol. 490 and Czart 581b; Nr. 11913 (Ukrainian), Nr. 11914 (Polish).

20. AAE Turquie 51, fol. 9.

21. Ibid.

22. Perepiska, pp. 34-36.

23. Ibid.

24. Osol. No. 253 II, fol. 283.

25. Copies of these manifestoes are in AGAD, Archiwum Potockich, No. 56. One bears the date 26 January 1709 (fol. 409); the other, in which Stanislaw offers to accept the Cossacks under his protection, was issued in November, 1708 (fol. 287).

26. O. Bodianskii, ed., “ Istoriia rusov ili Maloi Rossii,” Chteniia VII (1846), p. 25. This passage was repeated, almost word for word, in the fol­lowing works: A. Rigelman, “Letopisnoe povestvovanie î Maloi Rossii,” Chteniia (1847), p. 97; D. Bantysh-Kamenskii, Istoriia Maloi Rossii, III (3rd ed.: Moscow, 1842), II, p. 536. Cf. also Kostomarov, p. 630; Perepiska, p. 39.

27. “Istoriia rusov,” Chteniia, VII, p. 25.

28. Soloviev, VIII, p. 349.

29. Ibid.

30. “Ñîð³à Literarum ad Excell. Scoropadscium, ab Orlik Scriptarum Anno 1711, die 7-bris,” Perepiska, p. 55. Hryhor Orlyk was probably referring to this and similar correspondence in his letter to Chauvelin (21 December 1731 JJECor. pol. Pologne, 180, fol. 391 Jdescribingtheevents of 1711: “Mon Pere par une secrete correspondence, engage les Cosaques de Fucraine de se declarer pour luy....” Peter suspected that Skoropadskyi might have secret contacts with Orlyk and “he feared that the offensive being prepared by the Tatars and Zaporozhian Cossacks under the leader­ship of Pylyp Orlyk could be used by the Ukrainian military Starshyna for actions hostile to the Russian government.” Pisma ³ bumagi, 1711 (1), p. 346. D. M. Golitsyn also reported a rumor that Skoropadskyi was corres­ponding with Orlyk (Soloviev, VIII, p. 588). Soloviev states that this rumor was not investigated in order not to irritate the Hetman and his officers in face of Ihecomingconflictwith the Ottomans. Cf. I. Borshchak, “Pylyp Orlyk ³ Skoropadskyi,” Ukraina, 2 (Paris, 1949), p. 116.

31. Perepiska, p. 56.

32. A contemporary account of this campaign is F. E. Fabrice, Anec­dotes de Sejour du Roi de Suede a Bender (Hamburg, 1760), p. 48ff. See also Hatton, pp. 331-332.

33. An excerpt from Lagerberg’s report of 11 April 1711 on this aspect of the campaign is to be found in J JE Cor. pol. Turquie, 51, fol. 40. He states that: “Toute FUkraine ensuite a fait une alliance avec Ie Kan contre les Moscovites: de sorte que les Tartares n’ont fait aucun ravage.”

34. Ibid.

35. Estimates of Orlyk’s forces at the beginning of the campaign vary widely. Evarnitskii (II, p. 494) places the number as low as several hundred while Fabrice (p. 48) exaggerates the figure to 12,000. Lagerberg stated that over 2,000 Zaporozhians started out on the campaign, Lagerbergs Dagbok, p. 105 while Orlyk himself wrote that he had over 3,000 men when he started out from Bender. Perepiska, p. 41. Also cf. Krupnytskyi, p. 42.

36. “Anonymous despatch from Bender,” 15 March 1711. J JETurquie 51, fol. 19: “y ayant un grand concours de Cosaques qui viennent se sou- mettre au Grand general des Zaporoviens.” A similar although somewhat delayed report was sent from Bender by the Frenchman, J. Compredon (fol. 47). Peterwrote to Menshikov 3 May 1711 Pismaibumagi, 1711 (1), p. 216 that “all of Trans-Dnieper Ukraine has gone over to Orlyk and the Kiev wojewoda (Potocki)." Also cf. Lagerbergs Dagbok, pp. 102-104, about Orlyk’s successful progress. Only two Right Bank colonels, A. Tanskyi and H. Galagan, remained faithful to Peter, AIuZR, III, 2, doc. CCLXXXIV, p. 188.

37. Orlyk to Charles XII, Spring 1711, Perepiska, p. 38.

38. AIuZR, III, vol. 2, p. 188.

39. Potocki to Orlyk, 9, 16, 17, 18, 29 March 1711, Perepiska, pp. 66-68.

40. According to the report by Annenkov the allied forces which at­tacked him consisted of 20,000 Tatars, 3,000 Poles and 10,000 Cossacks. Krupnytskyi, p. 51. Compredon’s account of this siege also stresses the Cossacks’ lack of siege artillery. In this report Orlyk is titled “Gen. de Tartares" as well as Cossacks. AAE Cor. pol. Turquie 51, fol. 48.

41. For a discussion of the social and political organization of the Crimean Khanate see Alan Fisher, The Russian Annexation of the Crimea, 1772-1783 (Cambridge, 1970) and his The Crimean Tatars (Stanford, H∞ver Inst. Press, 1978). Another very useful discussion of this topic may be found in Barbara Kellner-Heinkele, Aus den Aufzeichnungen des Said Giray Sultan (Freiburg, 1975).

42. Silahdar Findiklili Mehmed Aga, Silahdar tarihi (Istanbul, 1928), p. 18.

43. The names of the Tatar mirzas who signed the Treaty indicate that they were representatives of the leading Crimean Tatar clans such as the Shirin, Mansur, Mankat and Segud and members of the current Tatar kurultai (council). There did not seem to be any representatives of the Nogais. Sbornik, p. 90. For the list of the names see Appendix B, part II, p. 213. I wish to thank Professor Alan Fisher for his help in establishing the correct Tatar forms of these names.

44. Orlyk to Charles XII, Spring, 1711, Perepiska, p. 39.

45. Ibid., p. 40.

46. Ibid., p. 41. Estimates of the number of captives taken by the Tatars vary between 20-30,000. Tallman, the Habsburg envoy at the Porte, re­lated in August, 1711 that 30,000 were taken. HHS Turcica I, k. 179, fasc. 1711. Lagerberg stated the number was 20,000. AAE, Cor. pol. Turquie 51, fol. 40. For estimates of the number taken on the Left Bank during this period see D. I. Bagalii, Ocherkii iz istorii kolonizatsii stepnoi okrainy (Moscow, 1887), pp. 254, 295, 460-467. Cf. also SRIO, XXV (1878), pp. 345-348.

47. Orlyk to Charles XII, Spring 1711, Perepiska, p. 41.

48. “Inpraetatio Edicti Turcarum Imperatoris... pro Liberandis Cap­rivis Ukraininensibus...." 3 July 1711, Perepiska, p. 42. Orlykcontinued to feel responsibility for the victims of this raid throughout his life. In April of 1723, while in Salonika, he tried (unsuccessfully) to free a woman taken captive in this raid. Cf. Diariusz, VIII, fol. 38, 65, 146.

49. Dashkov to Sieniawski, March 1711. Czart. 5787, No. 6836.

50. An example of his association of Orlyk with the Tatars is a remark made by a Right Bank peasant in 1789 who characterized an unpleasant situation as being “as bad as when Orlyk led the Horde into Ukraine.” Cf. AIuZR_f III, vol. 5, p. 689.

CHAPTER VI

1. Feldman, Polska a spτawa wschodnia_f p. 75.

2. For an analysis of the Prut Treaty see Akdes Kurat, “Der Prutfeldzug und Prutfrieden von 1711,” Jahrbiicher Jiir Geschichte Osteuropas_f X (1962), pp. 55-57 and his Prut Seferi ve Barishi_f 2 vols. (Ankara, 1951) and S. F. Oreshkova, Russko-turetskie Otnosheniia v nachale XVIIIv. (Mos­cow, 1971). The Russian version of the treaty varies considerably from the Ottoman, especially in the articles concerning Ukraine. Cf. T. Iuzefovich, Dogovory Rossii s Vostokom (St. Petersburg, 1869), pp. 11-12. During the confrontation at Prut the Zaporozhians did not play an important role.

3. Cf. Pritsak, “Das erste turkisch-ukrainische Bundnis,” Doroshenko and Rypka, “Hejtman Petr Dorosenko a jeho turecka politika,” and Wojcik, Traktat Andruszowski.

4. Devlet Girei to Orlyk, 7 September 1711, Perepiska_f p. 51.

5. Charles to the Zaporozhians, 16 October 1711, Perepiska_f p. 30.

6. Cf. Krupnytskyi, p. 67.

7. Cf. Orlyk to Queen Ulrika Eleonora in 1719, Jensen, p. 140: “I was ready to do this (go to Constantinople) but the deceased King of blessed memory held me back and ordered me to remain at his side with my men. I obeyed the King’s order but my disobedience in regard to the Vizirand the Khan greatly irritated them.” Also Orlyk to Hopken, December, 1724, Diariusz_f VIII, fol. 373a: “He (Charles) ordered me not to join the Turks.... I obeyed his orders which were against my interests.”

8. Appendix C, part I. In 1720 Hertsyk, one of Orlyk’s associates, was captured in Warsaw by Russian agents. During his interrogation he stated that Orlyk prepared three sets of instructions: one for Charles which stressed the ties of the Cossacks with the Swedish king; the second, meant for the Porte, stressed the Ukrainians’ desire for the support and protection of the Ottomans; and the third set was given to Maksymovych and not shown to the other members of the delegation. Cf. “Dopros Grigora Gert- sika...,” KSt_f III (1883), pp. 601-610.

9. Appendix C, p. 214.

10. Eighteen years later Orlyk tried to explain to Grand Vizir Ibrahim Pasha why he acted in this way in 1712. Cf. 13 June 1730, Diariusz_f XI, fol. 68a: “Since the Porte did not want to take advantage of that favorable opportunity which it had at Prut and force Moscow, by means of its vic­torious troops to abandon Ukraine, it not only neglected our interests but even assured Moscow in her (Moscow’s) possession of Ukraine through her treaty. On the other hand, I had, in writing, the assurance of the deceased King who assured me, the Host and the entire people, that he would continue the war with Moscow until, whether by force of arms or by treaty, he would free and bring Ukraine to her previous freedom. Also, at my election to the office of Hetman, I and the entire Host were obligated by oath not to leave His Majesty’s, the Swedish King’s protection until Ukraine would be freed from the heavy Muscovite yoke.” In this argument Orlyk ignored the obvious fact that Charles did not have the means to make good his promise to Orlyk and that his commitments to the Poles had already and would continue to interfere with its fulfillment.

11. Cf. Soloviev, VIII, p. 402. Also see N. Iorga, Geschichte des Os- manischen Reiches_t IV (Gotha, 1911), p. 304. The Hetman maintained close ties with the Patriarch of Jerusalem for many years. See Orlyk to the Patriarch, 21 December 1724, Diariusz, VIII, fol. 386a.

12. Yusuf Pasha, the former Aga of the Janissaries, was a Georgian who remained in office from 20 November 1711 to 11 November 1712. He should not be confused with Yusuf Pasha, the seraskeroi Bender who was removed from his office in 1710.

13. Feldman, Polska, 86-87.

14. Soloviev, VIII, p. 396.

15. Kostomarov, p. 659. Shafirov also worried that Orlyk and his associ­ates were very well informed about the state of affairs in Russia and could provide the Tsar’s enemies with g∞d advice. Cf. Soloviev, VIII, p. 412.

16. Cf. O. Subtelny, ‘“Peter Γs Testament’: A Reassessment,” Slavic Review, XXXIII, 4 (1974), pp. 663-678.

17. Golovkin to Skoropadskyi, 8 April 1712, Foreign Affairs archives as cited in Kostomarov, p. 647.

18. Some of these letters may be found in Kostomarov, pp. 665 ff.

19. Soloviev, VIII, p. 398.

20. Ibid., p. 408.

21. Orlyk to Ibrahim Pasha, 13 June 1730, Diariusz, XI, fol. 68b.

22. Horlenko to Orlyk, 27 February 1712, archives of the Ministry of Justice as cited in Kostomarov, p. 663.

23. Orlyk to Yusuf Pasha, 10 March 1712, Perepiska, pp. 57-60.

24. Ibid. According to Habsburg agents in Constantinople, the Swedes also insisted that the Ottomans force the Russians from all of Ukraine. Cf. Tallman to Hofkriegsrat, 11 March 1712, HHS, Exp. Ill, 47.

25. Appendix D, part II. Decades later, when the Orlyks presented this document to the French government they modified it to include all of Ukraine. Cf. Hryhor Orlyk^,s memorial to the French government which included the following document: “Diplome du Grand Seigneur Sultan Achmet qui assure a FHetman Orlik la possession de toute Fucraine, ” 31 August 1740, JJETurquie 107, fol. 136.

26. Appendix D, part II, pp. 214-221.

27. Ibid.

28. Cf. Borshchak, “Orlykiana,” Khliborobska Ukraina_f IV (Vienna, 1922-1923), pp. 366-367.

29. Lagerbergs Dagbok_f p. 203.

30. Borshchak, “Orlykiana,” p. 367.

CHAPTER VII

1. Orlyk to Yusuf Pasha, 10 March 1712, Perepiska_f p. 57.

2. YusufPashatoOrlyk, 18 April 1712, Jensen, p. 156. Eightyearslater Orlyk wrote that he received the Sultan’s diploma “den Fordertheil der Ucraine in Besitz zu nehmen” and that the Khan was ordered to send the Cossacks into the Right Bank. The Aga who delivered the Sultan’s diploma to Orlyk also provided the Hetman with “8 to Beutel mit Gelde, numblich 4,000 Reichsthaler” for the expenses of the expedition. Orlyk to Eleonora Ulrike, 15 March 1720 (p. 152).

3. Devlet Girei knew of and resented Orlyk’s caution in dealing with the Tatars. Cf. his remarks to this effect in Lagerbergs Dagbok_f p. 47.

4. Ibid. As early as the summer of 1710 the Khan reportedly stated that it would have been better if a true Cossack as a “general” (polkovnyk) had been selected to the post of Hetman.

5. Horlenko to Skoropadskyi, March 1712, Kostomarov, p. 661.

6. “Interpretatio Literarum Universalium Hani,” May 1712, AGAD Archiwum Sekretne, k. 43, fol. 14.

7. Ukrainian and Polish copies of this manifesto may be found in Czart_f 5816, No. 11916. A less legible copy is in Czart_f 484, fol. 107. These manifestoes were followed by letters of Devlet Girei to Orlyk urging the Hetman to move into the Right Bank.

8. V. Kochen, p. 155 as cited in Krupnytskyi, p. 80. Also cf. Orlyk to Hryhor, 15 January 1732, Diariusz_f XI, fol. 266. The Hetman wrote that this excuse did not convince Charles XII and it was not until Orlyk proved his loyalty during the Kalabalik that trust was restored.

9. For a discussion of the negotiations from the Polish point of view see Feldman, Polska, passim.

10. A copy (badly faded) of Sieniawski^,s conference with the Ottoman and Tatar envoys is to be found in Ossol. 353, fol. 4, “Konferencya poslow tureckich ³ tatarskich.” Also the report of Sieniawski to Szembek, 15 Sep­tember 1712, Czart 464, fol. 38.

11. “List Tomasza Tuczyny z Benderu, ”25 June 1712, Czart 500, No. 94. Also see Sieniawski to August II, 29 October 1712, Czart_f 464, fol. 107, about the Tsar’s decision to give “our Ukraine” to the Ottomans and Tatars.

12. Adam Mikolaj Sieniawski (ca. 1666-1726), one of the leading mag­nates of the Commonwealth and an important supporter of August II. In 1703 Sieniawski led the struggle against the uprising of Palii. Aconsistent proponent of a pro-Russian orientation, Sieniawski was Peter’s candidate for the Polish throne in 1706. Cf. also the introduction in Subtelny, The Letters of Mazepa.

13. Orlyk to Rogowski, 4 July 1712, Krupnytskyi, p. 195. Orlyk con­tinued to cultivate his contacts with Rogowski to the extent that on 21 February 1713 he issued an “Universal ochronny...” to the colonel. Also see Ukraina (Paris, 1952), p. 532.

14. Orlyk to Flemming, 20 November 1719, Sbornik_f p. 47. Also see the letters of Rzewuski to various Polish magnates, Czart 493, Nr. 27, fol. 119 and Nr. 31, fol. 141.

15. Rzewuski to Szembek, 6 December 1712, Czart 493, Nr. 26, fol. 115.

16. Stanislaw Chomentowski (1673-1728) was well acquainted with Ukrainian and Turkish affairs. In 1706 he was sent by August II to Kiev to maintain contacts with Menshikov. In 1711 he commanded the Polish tr∞ps on the Ottoman border during the Prut campaign. A faithful sup­porter of August II, he was also considered a “persona grata” at the court of the Tsar.

17. Orlyk to Charles XII (no date), Jensen, p. 160.

18. Orlyk to Sapieha, 26 June 1728, Diariusz_f X, fol. 95.

19. Apparently Horlenko had to be prodded by the Khan to be more active in Ukraine. See Devlet Girei to Horlenko, 6 February 1713, Czart 5907, Nr. 28530a.

20. Orlyk to Horlenko, 6 February 1713, Czart 5907, Nr. 28530b. This is a covering letter to that written by the Khan to Horlenko. Orlyk, like the Khan, requested news about Russian movements in Ukraine.

21. Orlyk to the Zaporozhians, 1 April 1713, Czart 5907, Nr. 28529. The Hetman t∞k great pleasure in describing the fate of Devlet Girei: “At first the Khan was to be beheaded but later his beard was shaved and he was sent off to Rhodes where the next few days will show whether he is to remain alive or not. However, neither he nor his sons will ever be Khans in the Crimea again. (Orlyk was wrong on this point—O.S.) The Turkish em­peror ordered the newly appointed Mufti to put a curse on anyone who should appoint him (Devlet Girei) or his sons to lead the Crimean Khanate.” Czart_f Relacja, fol. 411: Chomentowski suggests that Devlet Girei was removed because he blocked an agreement with the Russians.

22. The full title of Chomen tow ski’s report on the talks reads “Relacja z poselstwa do Naj. Porty Ottomanskiej Chomentowskiego, wojewody Ma- Zowieckiego.” It appears to have been written about three to four years after Chomentowski completed his mission to the Porte, that is, sometime in 1718. Two copies of this report exist: Czart_f 200 (henceforth, Czart_f Relacja) and a somewhat more legible copy in Ossol._f Nr. 1477 III. For the most part the Czartoryski copy will be cited. This document is especially valuable for its relatively calm, objective manner and abundant factual information.

23.Czart_f Relacja, fol. 418.

24. The text of this peace treaty (translated from the Turkish into Swed­ish by Zettersteen) was made available by A. Refik in KFA (1919), pp. 153- 161. Shafirov, while willing to concede border areas to the Porte, was opposed to allowing Orlyk and his men so close to the border. Soloviev, VIII, pp. 411-413.

25. Theyls, Memoires, p. 140: “Le Kam des Tartares gagne par les grandes promesses des factions suedoise and francoise, emploioit tout Ie credit qu’il avoit aupres du Sultan en faveur du Stanislas.” Also cf. Feld­man, Leszczynski, p. 93 who asserts that Stanislaw, Potocki and Wisnio- wecki were supposed to have flung themselves to the feet of the Khan during a conference and begged his aid in return for which they promised to give their claims to Kamianets, Podillia and all of Ukraine.

26. Orlyk’s ostensibly close relations with Stanislaw during the Bender period were reflected in Stanislaw’s grant of lands in Right Bank Ukraine to Orlyk to make up for the property Orlyk lost in the Left Bank. A copy of Stanislaw’s grant, dated 9 May 1713, was included in Orlyk’s letter to Stanislaw, 23 April 1730, Diariusz, XI.

27.Czart, Relacja, fol. 421.

28.Ibid.

29.Ibid.

30. Ibid. ”... the Sublime Porte does not need the land for itself but wants to give it to Hetman Orlyk and his Cossacks as was done earlier in the case of Doroshenko.”

31. Ibid. Also cf. De Goltz to August II, 10 October 1713, Czart 494, Nr. 79, fol. 369.

32. AGAD. Archiwum Radziwillow, dz. II, Nr. 2268: “Relacya con- ferencyej... Senatorow z Poslannikami Hana ³ Porty. ” IOOctober 1713. Also see “Nowiny z Warszawy, 18 October 1713,” Ossol. Nr. 353 II for a report on this meeting.

33.“Nowiny z Warszawy, 18 October 1713,” Ossol. Nr. 353 II.

34. Orlyk to V. Miillern, November 1713, Jensen, pp. 94-95. Itis inter­esting to note that some six years later, when Orlyk wrote to the Swedish government about the services rendered and sacrifices made for Charles XII, he presented the matter in a totally different light. Orlyk to Swedish Court, 13 November 1719, Jensen, p. 144: “I rejected the great fortune which the Turks offered me (i.e., the Right Bank).... I would have pre­ferred to stay in Turkey where, as can be seen from the enclosed document, I received 40 thalers daily from the Porte.”

35.Orlyk to Zaporozhians, 30 March 1713 (o.s.), Czart 5907, Nr. 28530.

36. Orlyk to the “Kasztellan Kamieniecki,” 17 December 1713, Czart 613, fol. 231.

37.Orlyk to V. Miillern, 11 October 1713, Krupnytskyi, p. 212.

38.Ibid., p. 213.

39. Rzewuski to Szembek, 6 December 1713. Czart 493, Nr. 31, fol. 141. Cf. also Feldman, Polska, p. 150.

40. This author wrote an account of Chomentowski^,s entire mission in verse. See Franciszek Gosciecki, S.J., Poselstwo Wielkie Jasnie Wielmoz- nego Stanislawa Chomentowskiego Woewody Mazowieckiego od Nayias- nieyszego Augusta II_f Krola Polskiego_f Xiazecia Soltana Tureckiego... przez lata 1712_f 1713_f 1714 (Lwow: “we Drukarni Collegium Soc. Jesu,” 1732), p. 251. The entire verse devoted to Orlyk is as follows:

Po smierci Mazepowey, Orlik pozostal

U ktorego papiery Mazepy dyszaly,

Jak u pisarza, dworu ó kancellaryi Hetmanskiey dozor, w iego byl dyspozycyi, Chc⅞c s⅛ Porcie przymilic, sekretne papiery Sam odwiozl Wezerowi, znac d⅞iac iak szczery ³ wierny Porty sluga, iako rozbuiami

Gosciecki goes on to state that among the secret papers of Mazepa which Orlyk handed over to the Grand Vizir were some which contained the plans of the Hospodar of Wallachia to betray the Turks. This act sup­posedly d∞med the Hospodar.

41. Sheremetiev to Sieniawski, 24 December 1713, Czart 466, Nr. 150. Cf. also the letter of D. Horlewicz (Horlenko) to M. Kalinowski, December 1713, Czart 5831, Nr. 14630, informing the Polish commander that his men are in Ukraine under the protection of the Khan and wish to avoid con­flicts with the Poles. However, early next year, Kalinowski reported to Sieniawski (1 February 1714, Czart 5845, Nr. 17002) that “wygnaiem te hultaystwo z tego kraiu.” Also cf. Krupnytskyi, p. 106.

42. Kalinowski to Sieniawski, 1 February 1714, Czart 5845, Nr. 17002 reported that he had established friendly and frequent contact with the Khan. Also cf. Feldman, Polska_f p. 152 and Krupnytskyi, p. 108.

43. Czart_f Relacja, fol. 427.

44. Ibid., fol. 428.

45. Ibid._f fol. 429. See,also Orlyk’s letters to Sieniawski written on 23 January and 14 February 1714, Czart 5907, Nrs. 28532-28533 requesting the Polish Crown Hetman’s good graces. Also see the Ietterof Myrovych to Sieniawski, 6 June 1714, Czart 5893, Nr. 25796. The Ietterof Horlenko to Rogowski (?) 31 October 1714, Czart 5831, Nr. 14629 is especially interest­ing in that it clearly reflects the change from Horlenko’s previous declara­tions of adherence to the Khan to statements of relief that the Zaporozhians are finally on Christian soil again and glad to have left the protection of the Turks and Tatars under which they had great difficulties.

CHAPTER VIII

1. The returnees asked for guarantees that they would not be harmed and that their property would be returned. The Tsar guaranteed their personal safety but refused to make any commitments as to the properties as most of these had been distributed among those men who remained loyal to Peter I. However, it was implied that if the returnees proved their loyalty some of their lands would be returned to them. Cf. Kostomarov, pp. 668-675.

2. Other members of the Starshyna who went to Sweden were Klym Dovhopolyi, Fedir Tretiak, Ivan and Atanas Hertsyk, Ivan Bystrytskyi. Orlyk’s family at this point consisted of his wife, Hanna, three sons, Hryhor, Mykhailo and Iakiv, and two daughters, Anastasia and Marfa. In Sweden, another daughter, Maria, was born. Cf. A. Jensen, “Orlyk v Shvetsii,” ZNTSh, XCII (1908), pp. 93-169.

3. For details regarding the stay of the Ukrainian emigres in Sweden see Jensen, “Orlyk v Shvetsii” and Krupnytskyi, pp. 109-122.

4. Cf. Jensen, “Orlyk v Shvetsii.” While in Sweden, Orlykcontinued to lay claim to the 60,000 ducats that Charles XII borrowed from Mazepa in 1708 in Budyshchi. However, Voinarovskyi’s wife Anna also arrived in Sweden and she too claimed the money. Cf. A. Jensen, “Rodyna Voinarov- skykh V Shvetsii,” ZNTSh, XCII (1908), pp. 170-193.

5. Orlyk to Malashevych, 8 December 1719, Istochniki, p. 290 and Orlyk to Flemming, 20 April 1720, Sbornik, p. 51 and Orlyk to Saadet Girei (undated), Sbornik, p. 84. Included in the Hetman’s letter to the Khan was a copy of the 1711 treaty.

6. Orlyk to Flemming, 20 April 1720, Sbornik, p. 51.

7. Ibid.

8. Orlyk to Flemming (undated), Sbornik, p. 107. This letter was written after the departure of the Ukrainians from Sweden, probably sometime in 1722.

9. Orlyk to Flemming, 13 July 1720, Sbornik, p. 58.

10. Ibid. In a letter to the Swedish minister, Illenborg, the Hetman re­quested that King Fredrick write to the Khan and urge him in Orlyk’s name, to gather an army at Azov and attack Astrakhan “so that the Turkish Muslims might be liberated.” Orlyk to Illenborg, ca. 26 August 1720, Krupnytskyi, p. 222.

11. Flemming to Orlyk, 23 September 1720, Sbornik, p. 62. Later, August II argued that he could do nothing in Orlyk’s case without the sejm^,s approval. Cf. August II to Sieniawski, 11 April 1722, Czart 2734, Nr. 84.

12. Letters of recommendation were addressed to: Charles VI, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, August II, Sultan Ahmet III and Khan Saadet Girei. The Swedish king also wrote to the Zaporozhians, informing them that they still had the support of Sweden and urging them to receive Orlyk well “because you will not find a man better suited for the august office of Hetman.” King Fredrick to the Zaporozhians, 25 September 1720, Istoch- niki, p. 302.

13. The Hetman hoped that George I would influence August II to provide a place for the Ukrainian Cossacks on the Right Bank. Cf. Orlyk to George 1,20 December 1720 in V. Kordt, “Lyst P. Orlyka do angliiskohθ korolia,” Stara Ukraina, XI-XII (1925), pp. 201-202.

14. For a description of this meeting see Diariusz, VII, fol. 65 and 72.

15. This abduction is described in detail in L. Wynar, Andrii Voinarov- skyi (Miinich, 1962), pp. 68-85.

16. Cf. Kostomarov, p. 684. The Poles raised this matter several times with the Russians. Cf. “Konferencja z Xiezem Dolgorukim...,” 5 Novem­ber 1721, AGAD, Archiwum Publ. Potockich, Nr. 58, fol. 209-305.

17. See “Dopros Gertsika,” KSt, III (1883), pp. 595-610.

18. For a discussion of these events see Diariusz, VII, fol. 78-80.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Jensen, "Orlyk v Shvetsii,” pp. 107-108. In the meantime, Baron Orlik died sometime in mid-April of 1721.

22. Diariusz, VII, fol. 85. In Cracow, as elsewhere, Orlyk made a sys­tematic tour of the libraries and seats of higher learning.

23. Diariusz, VII, fol. 101. For Prince Dolgorukii’s attempts to have the Hetman extradited see "Konferencja z Xiezem Dolgorukim...,” 5 No­vember 1721, AGAD, Archivum Publ. Potockich Nr. 58, fol. 209-305.

24. Diariusz, VII, fol. 101 and Krupnytskyi, p. 131.

25. Ibid. Johann Sztenflict (1682-1758) was a Swedish-born soldier-of- fortune who served with Charles XII and t∞k part in his Russian cam­paign. Previously he had been in Habsburg service (up to 1702) and during the Bender period he also served Ferenc Rakoczi. In 1719 he entered the service of the Duke of Holstein and followed him to St. Petersburg, already with the rank of major-general. In 1722 he married Anastasia, the eldest of Orlyk’s three daughters. After her death in 1728, he married her sister, Marfa. In 1733 he was, together with Hryhor Orlyk, one of Stanislaw’s closest supporters and in 1738 he had the rank of lieutenant-general in the French army. Several years later he had the position of the Swedish gover­nor of Hamburg. Throughout his career he c∞perated very closely with both Hryhor and Pylyp Orlyk.

26. Cf. Appendix A, p. 178.

27. Dianusz, VII, fol. 125.

28. Orlyk to Cachoda, 21 February 1726, Diariusz, IX, fol. 19.

29. For a concise treatment of Damad Ibrahim Pasha’s policies see "Nevsehirli Damad Ibrahim Pasa Devri,” in Mufassal Osmanli Tarihi, N (Istanbul, 1962), pp. 2431-2467.

30. See Mohammad Ali, H., Essai sur Vhistoire des relationspolitiques irano-ottomanes de 1722 a 1747 (Paris, 1937), passim.

31. Abdi Pasha to Sieniawski, 20 December 1721, Czart 5756, Nr. 170. The Pasha complains about the difficulties the Zaporozhians are con­stantly causing along the Polish-Ukrainian-Ottoman borders and notes that he has given them and the Khan strict warnings that this must cease.

32. Abdi Pasha to "Pana Regimentarza" (Humiecki), 1 February 1722, Czart 5756, Nr. 1.

33. Ibid. Nakhymovskyi was arrested the second time he passed through Khotyn with letters from Orlyk to the Zaporozhians. However, the Poles, after the abduction of Hertsyk (which had created resentment in Poland against the Russians) and the arrest of Nakhymovskyi did not want Orlyk to be arrested. Humiecki wrote to Sieniawski (20 April 1722, Czart 5834, Nr. 15216): “If IhepashaofKhotyndidtoOrlykwhathedidtoNakhimov- skyi then that would be dangerous for Poland....” This matter also caused August II concern as can be seen from his letters to Sieniawski (22 April 1722, Czart 2734, Nrs. 84, 90) urging careful handling of this affair.

34. Diariusz_t VII, fol. 143. Orlyk also accused the Pasha of siding with Moscow and of breaking the Muslim law of hospitality towards refugees.

35. The dispatch of Giovanni Emo, the Venetian resident at the Porte, dated 15 September 1722 in M. L. Shay, The Ottoman Empire from 1720 to 1734 (Urbana, 1944), p. 94. The Khan was reportedly very upset by the Porte’s ignoring of Russian pressure and even threatened to resign from his office rather than tolerate such a passive and infamous policy.

36. Diariusz_t VII, fol. 162.

37. Ibid., fol. 209.

38. Hammer, VII, p. 311.

39. Nepliuev to the Kollegia Innostranykh Del, 26 October 1722, in Akademiia Nauk Armiianskoi SSR, Institut Istorii, Armiano-russkie ot- nosheniia V perυoi treti XVlll veka. (Erevan, 1967), p. 118.

40. Diariusz_t VII, fol. 241. Nepliuev to the Kollegia Innostranikh DeV (30 October 1722, in Armiano-russkie Otnosheniia_t p. 121) noted that Orlyk has been ordered to go to Salonika and that local authorities were ordered “to treat him graciously, in contradiction of Your Majesty’s orders.” N. Theyls also sent a similar report (undated) to Vienna, HHS_t Turcica I, kart’on 190, fol. 278-285.

41. Malashevych to Orlyk, 20 December 1721 in Kordt, “Materialy,” p. 53.

42. Malashevych’s correspondence with Sieniawski illustrates his at­tempts to stay on good terms with the Poles and the Russians. Czart_t 5884, Nrs. 24029 to 24036 (Cyrillic script) and 24037 to 24041 (Latin script).

43. Cf. Evarnitskyii, II and Golobutskyi, Zaporozhska Sich_t passim for more detailed discussion of the plight of the Zaporozhians during this period.

44. This incident was described about 15 years later in a letter of the Zaporozhians to Orlyk (May, 1734) in KSt IV (1882), p. 119.

45. Diariusz_t VIII, fol. 335.

46. The most recent study of this event is G. Veinstein, “La revolte des mirza tatars contre Ie khan, 1724-1725,” Cahiers du monde russe et sovie- tique XII (1971), pp. 327-339. Also cf. Hammer, VII, p. 347 and Smirnov, Krimskoe Khanstvo_t II, p. 186ff.

47. Cf. Prince Golitsyn’s report, 15 October 1724, Evarnytskii, II, p. 1103 and Orlyk to Ibrahim Pasha, 17 December 1724, Diariusz_t VIII, fol. 365.

48. Golitsyn’s report, Evarnytskii, II, p. 1103.

49. Orlyk to Ibrahim Pasha, Diariusz, VIII, fol. 365.

50. Cf. ^oUkaz Gosudaria Petra I-go ê Hetmanu Skoropadskomu î prichinakh Uchrezhdeniia v Hlukhove Malorossiiskoi Kollegii,” 20 April 1722, Istochniki, pp. 315-317. For a more elaborate version of the ukaz, see pp. 321-325. The personnel of the Kollegia in Hlukhiv consisted of about 30 Russianbureaucrats. Cf. Kirilov, Tsvetushchee sostoianie,pp. 167-168. Also see Pisma ³ bumagi, VIII, 2, p. 869.

51. Istochniki, p. 321.

52. Ibid., p. 315.

53. Four years earlier Skoropadskyi had expressly requested the Tsar to have the Foreign Affairs Kollegia deal with Ukrainian matters. Cf. ^oPro- shenie Hetmana Skoropadskoho,” 1718, Ibid., p. 282.

54. Cf. N. I. Pavlenko, et al., eds., Rossiia υ period reform Petra I (Moscow, 1973), pp. 218-219.

55. See I. Dzhydzhora, Ukraina v pershyi polovyni XVIII υiku (Kiev, 1930), p. 144. The question of intermarriage between Russians and Ukrain­ians was a sensitive one. Prior to his defection, Mazepa was accused of not allowing the Starshyna to associate with and marry into Russian families. Cf. “Donoshenie Kochubeia Gosudariu,” April, 1708, Istochniki, p. 106.

56. The order was issued by the Senate on 5 October 1720. Cited by B. Krupnytskyi, Hetman Danylo Apostol ³ ioho doba (Augsburg, 1948), p.

28.

57. Dzhydzhora, Ukraina, p. 3.

58. See E. Radakova, ^oUkrainski kozaky na Ladozhskim kanalu,” ZNTSh, XII (1896), p. 14.

59. Dzhydzhora, Ukraina, p. 38.

60. Ibid., p. 101.

61. Cf. V. Rudniv, ^oFinansovyi stan,” p. 153. However, in 1725, the year that Peter I died, income sagged. In 1725 it was about 118,552 rubles in cash and 36,774 rubles in kind. Cf. Kirilov, Tsvetushchee sostoianie, p. 170.

62. There are no extensive studies of Skoropadskyi’s crucial hetmancy. For a survey of his hetmancy see Krupnytskyi, Hetman Danylo Apostol, pp. 19-30.

63. For the text of this response see ^oOtvetnaia Chelobytnia Getmana Skoropadskogo...,” 3 May 1722, Istochniki, pp. 317-320.

64. Ibid., p. 320.

65. Cf. Peter Γs ukaz of 16 May 1722, Istochniki, pp. 321-325.

66. The most noteworthy of the few studies dealing with Polubotok is A. Lazarevskii, “Pavel Polubotok,” Russkii Arkhiv, I (1880), pp. 137-209. Also see Krupnytskyi, Hetman Danylo Apostol, pp. 31-35.

67. Krupnytskyi, Hetman Danylo Apostol, p. 32.

68. Soloviev, IX, p. 529.

69. Ibid., p. 530.

70. Ibid., p. 531.

CHAPTER IX

1. For a description of Salonika see N. G. Svoronos, Le Commerce de Salonique au XVIII siecle (Paris, 1956). While Orlyk was in Salonika he had close contacts with the Jesuits. In this connection see G. Veinstein, "Missionaires jesuites et agents francais en Crimee au debut au XVIII siecle,” Cahiers du monde russe et Sovietique, XI, 1 (1970), pp. 414-458.

2. Ukrainian monks regularly visited the Hetman in Salonika. For their accounts of the situation in Ukraine see Diariusz, IX, fol. 200. In 1728 the famous Ukrainian traveler, Vasyl Hryhorovych-Barskyi surreptitiously visited the Hetman in Salonika.

3. See, for example, Orlyk to Damad Ibrahim Pasha, 17 December 1724, Diariusz, VIII, fol. 365.

4. Karl Friedrich, the Duke of Holstein (1700-1730), expressed his sympathy for Orlyk while both of them were in Silesia in January 1721. See Diariusz, VII, fol. 63. For the Hetman’s correspondence with the Duke see Diariusz, VII, fol. 99 and VIII, fol. 94 and IX, fol. 121.

5. An excellent study of this period with great relevance for the under­standing of Orlyk’s ties with Stanisiaw is E. Rostworowski, O Polsk# Koronξ—Polityka Francji w Iatach 1725-1733 (Wroclaw-Cracow, 1958).

6. Diariusz, IX, fol. 53.

7. Stanisiaw to Orlyk, 19 February 1726, Diariusz, IX, fol. 61.

8. Ibid.

9. Diariusz, IX, fol. 132. This remark was made several months later, after Stanisiaw and his supporters continued to approach Orlykwith their offers.

10. Orlyk to Stanislaw, 3 June 1726, Ibid., fol. 55 and 27 September 1726, fol. 99.

11. Diariusz, IX, fol. 98.

12. Stanislaw to Orlyk, 7 March 1727, Ibid., fol. 238.

13. Ibid., fol. 239.

14. Orlyk to Stanislaw, 5 June 1727, Ibid., fol. 249.

15. Ibid., Orlyk noted: "in my response I raised Stanislaw’s hopes for a revolution in Ukraine.”

16. Actually the "Little Russian Kollegia^ff consisted of six members with the commander of the Russian tr∞ps in Ukraine, Brigadier Velia­minov, as its president.

17. Diariusz, IX, fol. 200. On 28 March 1727 Orlyk noted the arrival of several monks from Ukraine at his quarters. Much of what they told the exile-Hetman was later included, unaltered, in Orlyk’s letter to Stanislaw.

18. Orlyk to Stanislaw, 5 June 1727, Ibid., fol. 249.

19. Ibid., fol. 250.

20. The role of Menshikov in blocking Orlyk’s attempts to gain amnesty and return to Ukraine was decisive. Besides his tendency to follow Peter Γs policy towards Ukraine and his personal rivalry with the Duke of Holstein, there was another dimension to his opposition to Orlyk’s return. In 1725 Menshikov was approached by the Swedish diplomat, I. Cederhelm, with the proposal that in return for his support of a plan to return the Baltic provinces to Sweden, the Swedes would support him in what Cederhelm (who had been personally acquainted with Mazepa) called the “Mazepa Project.’’ This entailed the separation of Ukraine from the Russian crown and a creation of a separate kingdom for Menshikov who would also bear a royal title. Cf. G. A. Nekrasov, Russko-shvedskie Otnosheniia ³ polityka velikikh derzhav v 1721-1726 (Moscow, 1964), p. 208. Menshikov’s close ties with Danylo Apostol (elected Hetman September, 1727) were another reason for opposing Orlyk’s return. Cf. Krupnytskyi, Hetman Danylo Apostol, p. 52.

21. The French had the means to exert influence on the Porte. There were over 600 French trading houses throughout the Ottoman empire. The major ones were located in Pera, Smyrna and Salonika. Cf. A. Kochu- binskii, Graf A. I. Osterman ³ razdel Turtsii (Odessa, 1899).

22. Marquis Louis-Saveur de Villeneuve (1675-1744) had been a pro­vincial official in Marseilles before his appointment to the post of ambas­sador to Constantinople. Although he had no previous diplomatic experi­ence his great asset was that coming from Marseilles he had a good knowledege of the French commercial ties with the Ottoman Empire. He served in Constantinople from the fall of 1728 to the summer of 1741. See A. Vandal, Une ambassade francaise en Orient sous LouisXV. Le mission de marquis de Villeneuve, 1728-1741 (Paris, 1887).

23. The French government instructed Villeneuve to contact the elder Orlyk and report on him. He did this in May 1729, using the delivery of Stanislaw’s letter as an excuse. For Villeneuve’s frequent reports on Orlyk see Bib. Nat., Fr. 7178, passim.

24. Monti to Villeneuve, 18 September 1729, AAE, Pologne, vol. 185, fol. 86.

25. Monti to Chauvelin, 7 November 1729, AAE, Pologne, vol. 184, fol. 261. Zulich’s “pro memoria” was attached to this letter.

26. Hryhor to Orlyk, 16 May 1730, Diariusz, XI, fol. 56 contains ’ detailed account of Hryhor’s reception and stay in France.

27. A very detailed register of all the funds which Hryhor received from the French government for his services from 1729 to 1736 may be found in Dinteville. In 1730 Hryhor received 500 livres for travel.

28. Diariusz, XI, fol. 55.

29. Orlyk to Grand Vizir Ibrahim Pasha, 13 June 1730, Ibid., fol. 68.

30. Diariusz, XI, fol. 71.

31. Ibid., fol. 75.

32. Ibid., fol. 76.

33. Ibid.

34. Villeneuve to Chauvelin, 20 June 1730, AAE Turquie 82, fol. 323.

35. Orlyk to Hryhor, 21 August 1730, Diariusz_t XI, fol. 117.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid._t fol. 118.

38. Ibid._t fol. 119.

39. Kaplan Girei I reigned as Khan three times: 1708-1709, 1713-1716 and 1730-1736. His three depositions resulted on every occasion due to unfortunate military operations (cf. ft. 44). However, he was known to be a very skillful politician, see Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leyden-London, 1925), p. 724.

40. Villeneuve to Chauvelin, 20 November 1730, JJETurquie 82, fol. 449. Also see G. Veinstein, “Les Tatars de Crimee et la Secondeelectionde Stanislas Leszczynski," Cahiers du monde russe et Sovietique_t vol. XI, 1 (1970), pp. 24-92.

41. Villeneuve to Chauvelin, Ibid., fol. 446.

42. For a copy of this memorial see “Memoire presentee a S. M. Ie roi de Pologne par son tres humble serviteur, a Chambord Ie 9 XII 1731." Dia- riusz_t XI, fol. 331.

43. “Memoire presentee a Monseigneur Ie Garde Sceaux, a Versailles Ie 21 decembre 1731," AAE_t Pologne, 180, fol. 392.

44. Ibid.

45. Hryhor to Orlyk, 16 February 1732, Diariusz XI, fol. 323 contains Hryhor’s reports on the course of these conferences.

46. For travel expenses of this trip Hryhor received three times as much as he had been given previously, i.e., 1500 livres. Dinteville.

47. Two copies of this letter are available: Louis XV to Kaplan Girei, 29 December 1731, AAE Turquie 83, fol. 285 and Diariusz XI, fol. 463.

48. Orlyk to Hryhor, 6 April 1732, Diariusz XI, fol. 324.

49. Orlyk to Hryhor, 20 June 1732, Ibid._t fol. 388.

50. Ibid.

51. Nepliuev managed to keep Hryhor under observation until his arri­val in Smyrna where he lost track of him and concluded that he must have gone to Persia where, as he informed his government, he could do little harm. See Kochubinskii, Graf Osterman, p. 43.

52. Hryhor to Orlyk, 23 November 1732, Diariusz_t XI, fol. 453. This long ten-page letter, written after his return to Constantinople, described in detail Hryhor’s stay and discussions in Bakhchesarai.

53. Ibid.

54. Ibid._t fol. 458.

55. Ibid._t fol. 459.

56. Ibid.

57. Copies of these letters are in Diariusz_t XI, fol. 463-465.

CHAPTER X

1. Cf. I. Dzhydzhora, "Ekonomichna polityka Tosiiskohopravytelstva suproty Ukrainy v 1710-1730 rr.,” in his Ukraina_t pp. 1-96.

2. Ibid.

3. Krupnytskyi, Hetman Danylo Apostol_t p. 39.

4. Minutes of the Supreme Secret Council, 11 February 1726, SRIO LV, doc. 4, p. 26. Russian spies informed their government in 1722 that the Ottomans were planning to incite unrest in Ukraine. Cf. Evarnytskii, III, p. 537.

5. Krupnytskyi, Hetman Danylo Apostol_t p. 41.

6. Minutes of Supreme Secret Council, 23 February 1726, SRIO LV, doc. 26, p. 60.

7. Minutes of Supreme Secret Council, 28 March 1726, SRIO LV, doc. 64, p. 150.

8. For Menshikov’s huge landholdings in Ukraine see Pavlenko, et al., Rossiia υ period reform Petra I (Moscow, 1973), pp. 218-219. Veliaminov’s report on the taxes which Menshikov paid on his lands in Ukraine may be found in the Minutes of the Supreme Secret Council, 12 May 1727, SRIO LXIII, doc. 208, p. 502. A discussion of Danylo ApostoFs close ties with Menshikov appears in Krupnytskyi, Hetman Danylo Apostol_t 46-47, 52-

53. ApostoFs son, Petro, became so attached to Menshikov that after the latter’s downfall, Petro petitioned, unsuccessfully, to be allowed to share Menshikov’s exile.

9. Minutes of Supreme Secret Council, 12 May 1727, SRIO LXIII, doc. 206, p. 480.

10. Ibid., doc. 208, p. 484. Also see the order of 19 July 1727, SRIO LXIX, doc. 63, p. 109.

11. Lefort reported that Menshikov “voulait se retirer en Ukraine et ó avior Ie Commandement. ” Cf. Krupnytskyi, Hetman Danylo Apostol_t p. 52.

12. The fording places included those on the Dnieper at Kodak, Nyky- tyni on Kamenka River and Kizikermen. There was also one at the con­fluence of the Boh and Mertvi-Vody Rivers. Cf. A. Skalkovskii, Istoriia ISIovoi-Sechi Ui Posliedniago Kosha Zaporozhskago (Odessa, 1846), II. For the conditions of the Zaporozhians' life under the Khan’s rule see Evar- nytskii, III, pp. 510-534.

13. This episode was described in the Kuryer Polski (23 August 1731). For the problems which Zaporozhian brigandage caused the Tatars see D. I. Evarnytskii, Istochniki dlia istorH Zaporozhskikh kozakoυ(N∖adm∖τ, 1903), II, doc. CCXXIX, p. 1073 and doc. CCXXXI, p. 1077.

14. Villeneuve to Chauvelin, 26 February 1734, Bib. Nat., Fr. 7179, fol. 394. For the appeals of Stanislaw’s Polish supporters to the Zaporozhians see Evarnytskii, III, p. 560.

15. Villeneuve to Chauvelin, 12 March 1734, Bib. Nat., Fr. 7180, fol. 59.

16. Secret Order to Nepliuev, 27 March 1734, in Evarnytskii, Istochniki, II, doc. CCXLIV, p. 1148.

17. Orlyk to the Zaporozhians, 23 April 1734 in A. Skalkovskii, “Filip Orlik ³ zaporozhtsy,” KSt IV (1882), pp. 106-124.

18. Ibid., p. 102.

19. Zaporozhians to Orlyk, 8 May 1734, Ibid., p. 119.

20. Ibid., p. 120. Russian officials such as B. P. Sheremetiev estimated that there were about 30,000 Zaporozhians in Crimean territory. However, when the Zaporozhians t∞k the oath of allegiance the total came to about 7,268 men. Cf. Evarnytskii, III, pp. 553, 605.

21. Zaporozhians to Kaplan Girei, 8 May 1734, Ibid., p. 122.

22. Villeneuve to Chauvelin, 31 May 1734, Bib. Nat. Fr. 7180, fol. 92. Hryhor passed on to the French ambassador much of the information con­tained in the letter.

23. Villeneuve to Chauvelin, 31 January 1735, AAE, Turquie 93, fol. 50. Besides mentioning the one thousand sequins which he sent to Orlyk, the French ambassador also reported that the Grand Vizir provided Orlyk with “24 purses.”

24. Kaplan Girei to Louis XV, 22 September 1734, Dinteville. Another copy of this letter is in AAE, Turquie 93, fol. 75. Attached is the original Tatar letter.

25. Empress Anna Ivanova to Prince A. I. Shakhovskoi, 25 April 1734, SRIO CVIII, p. 134. At this time calendars which caricatured the empire and its ministers appeared in Ukraine, coming from Poland by way of Lviv. Kochubinskii (Graf Ostermann, p. xxxvii) assumes, correctly in our opinion, that Orlyk was implicated in their formulation.

26. Cabinet of Ministers to Baron von Keyserling, 31 August 1734, SRIO CVIII, p. 348.

27. Villeneuve to Chauvelin, 16 March 1736, JJETurquie 93, fol. 159. Cf. also Konopczynski, Polska a Szwecja, p. 141.

28. Orlyk to Hryhor, 30 October 1738, AAE Pologne 227, fol. 260. The original of this letter was written in Polish. It was translated into French by Hryhor and presented to the French government. A copy was also sent to Sweden. Ferenc Rakoczi died in April of 1735. His son Jozef concluded a treaty with the Porte on 25 January 1738 and called on the Hungarians to rise against the Habsburgs.

29. Orlyk to Hryhor, Ibid., fol. 262.

30. Ibid., fol. 263. In the letter which Hryhor sent to Sweden the phrase which was used was not “chef d’une nation” but rather “chef de la nation cosaque.”

31. Ibid., fol. 264.

32. Krupnytskyi, p. 165.

33. Ibid.

34. Orlyk to Hryhor, AAE Pologne 227, fol. 265.

35. Ibid., fol. 266.

36. Krupnytskyi, p. 168, and Konopczynski, Polska a Szwecja_f p. 145.

37. Soloviev, X, p. 451.

38. Vandal, Une ambassade, p. 313.

39. Even as early as 1738 both Orlyks had renewed contact with the Swedes. Hryhor cooperated closely with the secret Swedish envoy to the Porte, Major Sinclair, who was assassinated by Russian agents on the way back to Stockholm in the summer of 1738. A detailed account of this event is provided by Hryhor in the following document: “Relation de tout ce qui s’est passe a Toccasionde Tinfameassassinatdu Baronde Sinclair.” Dinte- ville. Russian agents also planned to deal in similar fashion with the younger Orlyk and Rakoczi. Cf. Konopczynski, Polska a Szwecja, p. 146 and Soloviev, X, p. 623. The Austrian government was also intent on cap­turing or eliminating Rakoczi and Orlyk (the younger and the elder). On 7 January 1739 it issued a "Rundschreiben an die Landes-Chefs in Bohmen, Mahren und Schlesien, die Entdeckung und Verhaftung des Rakoczy und eines gewissen Orlik betreffend.” It accused “der Beruhmte Orlik, von geburthein Cosack” of having the intention “denen Turken zum unchrist und unwurdigen Werckzeug... zudienen.” The reference here is to the younger Orlyk. (Kochubinskii, Graf Osterman, p. xxxvi.) The new French envoy to the Porte, Castellane, reported on 13 December 1741 (Hurmuzaki, Suppl. 1, vol. 1, doc. DCCCXXIII, p. 567) that “Monsieur Orlick avait promis aux suedois son concours contre les Moscovites.”

40. Castellane to the Foreign Ministry, 7 June 1742, Hurmuzaki, Suppl. I, vol. I, doc. DCCCXXVII, p. 569. Alsoadded was the fact the Hospodar of Moldavia, Maurocordato, had ordered that his papers be sent to the Porte. For details of Orlyk’s final years, see Krupnytskyi, pp. 170ff.

APPENDIX A

1. Orlyk’s long epistle to Iavorskyi is the most complete account of the events which led up to Mazepa’s defection. Replete with details, it traces the development of the Hetman’s plans from their inception to their cul­mination. However, the letter also contains a bias, one which reflects the circumstances in which it was written. In July, 1721 Orlyk, newly arrived in Poland, was despondent about his and his cause’s future. Seeing few other alternatives, he made one of his periodic attempts to gain an amnesty from the Tsar. As might be expected, he approached Stefan Iavorskyi, his old benefactor and current Metropolitan of Riazan, to aid him in the endeavor [Iavorskyi had previously helped several returned Mazepists]. On July 12 Orlyk completed his epistle which, according to his diary, “had taken very long to write.” Addressed to Iavorskyi, the letter was also meant to be read by Peter I himself. In it Orlyk “confessed” all he knew or claimed to know about Mazepa’s plot. And since the purpose of the letter was to gain amnesty, Orlyk minimized his own role in the plot, making it appear as if he was merely the t∞l of Mazepa. Indeed, Orlyk even argued that he tried to undermine his Hetman’s plans. In any case, the point of the letter was to show the supposedly minor part Orlyk played in the plot and to place the burden of the guilt for all that happened in 1708 on the deceased Hetman. Despite this bias, however, Orlyk’s letter provides an unmatched insight into the events and persons which decided the fate of Ukraine during the crucial years of Peter Γs reign.

The letter was published, probably by N. Kostomarov, in Osnova (St. Petersburg, 1862, No. X, pp. 1 -28), a monthly which was put out by former members of the Sts. Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood. According to Solo­viev (Istoriia rossii_f vol. VIII, p. 314) the original of Orlyk’s letter may be found in TSGADA, fol. 6, d. 153, 11. 1-86.

2. For Wolski’s secret instructions see Istochniki_t pp. 50-51.

3. Kochubei informed Peter I about the contacts between the Hetman and Princess Dolska. Cf. Istochniki_f p. 98. For a thorough discussion of the relations between Mazepa and the Princess see Pritsak, “Hetman I. Mazepa ³ Kn. Anna Dolska,” Mazepa—Zbirnyk_f vol. II, pp. 102-117.

4. Kochubei contradicts Orlyk on this point, stating that since the Chancellor handled all of Mazepa’s secret correspondence he must have been aware of what was happening. Cf. Istochniki_f p. 87.

5. Even in his private conversations Mazepa emphasized that “Mos­cow means to impose greater demands on Little Russian Ukraine.” Istoch- niki_t p. 101.

6. For a study of Mazepa’s relations with Menshikov see G. Georgiev­skii, “Mazepa ³ Menshikov. Novye Materialy,” Istoricheskii Zhurnal (No. 12), 1940, pp. 72-85.

7. Dmytro Horlenko was colonel of Pryluky from 1692-1708 and Da- nylo Apostol was colonel of Myrhorod from 1683-1727. These two colonels were among the most influential political figures in the Hetmanate. Apos- tol was elected Hetman in 1727 and proved to be a stubborn defender of Ukraine’s rights and liberties. Cf. B. Krupnytskyi, Hetman Danylo Apos- tol ³ ioho doba (Augsburg, 1948).

8. Zalenski was the rector of the Jesuit collegium in Vynnytsia. Ac­cording to Kochubei, the Jesuit tried to persuade the Cossacks that they had nothing to fear from the Swedes. Cf. Istochniki_f pp. 101-103.

9. According to Kochubei this reading of the Hadiach Pact was a defi­nite indication that Mazepa and the heneralna Starshyna were plotting treason. Cf. Istochniki_f p. 102.

10. Mazepa often claimed that his actions were not motivated by the desire for private gain. Cf. his letter to Skoropadskyi and Charles XIΓs manifesto in Istochniki_f pp. 173 and 206.

11. Peter Γs refusal to provide for Ukraine’s defense was probably the immediate reason for Mazepa’s decision to join the Swedes. This point is discussed at length in Subtelny, “Mazepa, Peter I and the Question of Treason,” pp. 170-171.

12. For a discussion of Mazepa’s contacts with the Poles see Andrusiak, “Zviazky Mazepy z Stanislavom Leshchynskim" and Subtelny, Letters of Mazepa_f pp. 15-30.

13. One of Mazepa’s letters to Leszczynski was published in Istochniki_f p. 194.

14. Samiilo Samus^,, colonel of Bohuslav regiment on the Right Bank from 1688-1713, was one of the leaders of the vast anti-Polish uprising which engulfed the Right Bank in 1702.

15. In 1708 Mazepa continued to urge leading Polish statesmen to set aside their internal conflicts and to unite for the good of the Common­wealth for only this would preserve it against Russian pressure. See Sub- telny, Letters of Mazepa_f p. 132.

16. Cf. Istochniki_f p. 87.

17. Ibid._f p. 102.

18. Karpo Mokrievych was the Chancellor-General of the Zaporozhian Host from 1669 to 1672.

19. For Peter Γs manifesto issued on the occasion of Kochubei’s and Iskra’s execution see Istochniki_f pp. 81-82.

20. Dmytro Zelenskyi was the colonel of Lubny from 1701 to 1708. In 1709 he was arrested and deported to Siberia where he died.

21. The protocol of Kochubei’s and Iskra’s interrogation appeared in Istochniki_f pp. 72-126.

22. Mazepa reported to Peter I on 16 July 1708 that the execution of Kochubei and Iskra had been carried out. Cf. Istochniki_f pp. 83-85.

23. The manifesto of Stanislaw to the Ukrainians was published in Perepiska_f p. 20.

24. Crown Hetman Sieniawski, for example, wrote to Mazepa in Janu­ary of 1708 and informed him that rumors about his contacts with Dolska were rife in Poland. Cf. Subtelny, Letters of Mazepa_f p. 65.

25. Ivan Bystrytskyi was a distant relative of the Hetman. He had the office of Starosta of Sheptivka from 1687 to 1708, that is, as Iongas Mazepa was Hetman. After Poltava, he followed the Hetman to Benderand from there he went with Orlyk to Sweden where he died in 1717.

26. Count Carl Piper was one of Charles XIΓs closest associates and a member of his cabinet. He was later taken captive by the Russians at Pol­tava.

27. The Chancellarist Danylo Bolbota was often used by Mazepa for delicate diplomatic missions. For example, in 1707 he was sent on a secret mission to the Crimea and in 1708 he established contact with the Otto­mans at Ochakiv.

APPENDIX B

1. This document was published in Latin in Perepiska_f pp. 44-47. The original title reads: The Main Points for the Negotiation of the Treaty with the Khan and the Crimean Realm. In a report to Charles XII dated 19 January 1711 (o.s.) Lagerberg noted that a delegation of Ukrainian Cos­sacks had met with the Tatars in order to negotiate a treaty and that their instructions included 24 rather than the 23 points contained in this ver­sion. Cf. Lagerberg^,s Dagbok_t p. 40.

2. The exact text of the treaty which Khmelnytskyi concluded with the Crimean Tatars in February-March 1648 is unknown. However, at least some of the points which were included in Khmelnytskyi’s treaty may have been deduced from the Puncta Compendiosa which cites Khmelnytskyi’s treaty as its model. See also Hrushevskyi_t VIII, p. 169 and Smirnov, Krzm- skoe Khanstvo_t I, p. 539.

3. For a discussion of the Ukrainian colonization of the Slobodas see D. I. Bagalii, Ocherki iz istorii kolonizatsii stepnoi okrainy (Moscow, 1887).

4. The complete title of the Pacta Conventa or treaty reads: The Treaty Between the Crimean Realm and the Zaporozhian Host and the People of Little Russia Concluded for Eternal Friendship, Fraternity and Indis­soluble Military Alliance. (Concluded near Cairo [a fording place on the lower Dnieper] in the year of our salvation 1711_t the 23rd of January). There are two published copies of the Pacta Conventa: one, which served as the basis for this translation, is in Perepiska_t pp. 47-50, and the other is in Sbornik_t pp. 87-90. Copies of this document are also in the archives of the French foreign ministry. One copy was sent to the ministry s∞n after the treaty was signed in 1711 (Cf. AAE Cor. Pol. Turquie, vol. 51, vol. 19). The others were presented to the ministry by Hryhor Orlyk in 1731 (Cf. AAE Cor. Pol. Pologne, vol. 180, fol. 392) and in 1740 (Cf. AAECor. Pol. Turquie, vol. 107, fol. 136). There is also a copy of this treaty among Hryhor Orlyk’s papers in Dinteville.

5. These names have been rendered as they appear in the Perepiska version. No attempt has been made to reconstruct the proper Tatar forms.

APPENDIX C

1. The complete title of this document reads: Instructions for the Honorable Dmytro Horlenko_t the colonel of Pryluky_t Klym Dovhopolyi_t procurator-general, Ivan Maksymovych_t notary-general, Hryhor Hertsyk_t adjutant-general—envoys extraordinary of the Zaporozhian Host to the Sublime Ottoman Porte in the matter of liberating our fatherland, Little Russia, on both sides of the Dnieper, from the terrible Muscovite yoke (and acting) in the name of the Illustrious Hetman Pylyp Orlyk and the entire Zaporozhian Host together with the Honorable Konstantyn Hordienko_t the koshovyi-otaman of the Lower Zaporozhian Host and chosen by the same Illustrious Hetman in the name of the entire Zaporozhian Host and the Ruthenian people. (Given in the place of Baba, in the year of Our Lord, 3 November 1711.) The only full version of this document was pub- Iished in the Perepiska (pp. 61-66) and it serves as the basis for this trans­lation. An abridged version, in French translation, was presented to the French government by Hryhor Orlyk in 1740 (A AECor. Pol. Turquie, vol. 107, fol. 133).

2. In documents written in Ukrainian or Russian Orlyk normally used the term “Little Russia” and in documents written in Latin he used the term “Ukraine.”

3. Cf. Kostomarov, Mazepa_t p. 610.

4. The Ottomans did not attach much importance to this point as can be seen from the Grand Vizir’s statement to the Muscovite envoys: “this matter (of the Ukrainians arrested and taken to Muscovy) is not of great importance....” Cf. Oreshkova, Russko-tuτetskie Otnosheniia, p. 161.

5. This is the most widespread of the documents dealing with Orlyk’s relations with the Muslims. Published versions are to be found in Sbornik (p. 75), used for this translation, Ohienko (p. 208) and an amended version, which will be discussed below, published by Borshchak (ZNTSh_f vol. 134- 135, p. 133). Latin copies of this document are also in Czart_f 498, fol. 101- 106 and (according to Krupnytskyi, p. 72) in the Dresden State Archives, cloc. 698. At least three French copies of the document are to be found in the archives of the foreign ministry (AAE Cor. pol. Turquie, vol. 51, fol. 21-22; AAE Cor. pol., vol. 180, fol. 397; AAE Cor. pol. Turquie, vol. 107, fol. 136-137). There is also a copy in the Dinteville archives. However, all the French versions of this document were later altered by the Orlyks so that it would appear that Ahmet III awarded the Hetman not only the Right Bank but all of Ukraine.

6. 5 March 1712.

Glossary

aga—an Ottoman official

bey—an Ottoman official superior to an aga but inferior to a pasha; in Crimea the title was used by the leaders of the noble clans harac—a tax paid in the Ottoman empire by non-Muslims in lieu of military service

hatti-sherif—the official mandate or rescript of the Sultan heneralna-starshyna—the holders of the highest military and civil offices in the Hetmanate; it included such offices as Chancellor, Quartermaster-General, Judge-General, Adjutant-General, Mace­bearer-General, Standardbearer-General.

holota—the p∞rest stratum of Ukrainian Cossacks iasyr—a Turkic word for prisoners-of-war and captives; usually applied to captives taken in Tatar raids

Kalabalik—a Turkic term for tumult, fray; refers to the Ottomans and Tatars storming of Charles XIΓs camp on 31 January 1713 and the subsequent arrest of the Swedish King.

koshσυyi, koshovyi-otaman—the highest Cossack official elected by the Zaporozhian Cossack assembly; holder of the highest military and administrative authority in the Zaporozhian Sich. mirza—leaders of the Nogai tribes in the Crimean Khanate piataky—modern, western military formations introduced by Peter I

polkoυnyk—the highest military, administrative and judicial authority in the regiment (polk). The Hetmanate was divided into ten territorially based regiments in the early 18th century prikaz—from the 16th to early 18th century, an organ of the tsars’ central administration

rada—the general assembly of the Zaporozhian Cossacks

Right and Left Bank Ukraine—as one looks down the Dnieper River Right Bank is on the right and Left Bank is on the left of the Dnieper

sejm—the diet, assembly of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth serasker—an Ottoman military governor or minister

sich—the Zaporozhian camp or stronghold established on the Dnieper beyond the rapids

sloboda—newly colonized lands which were freed for a time from the payment of taxes and various other obligations

Starosta—a territorial administrator appointed by the Polish king, the chief official of the Starostwo_f a subdivision of the wojewod- stwo

Starshyna—the Ukrainian Cossack officer-elite szlachta—the nobility of Poland-Lithuania ukaz—a manifesto issued by the Tsar universal—a manifesto issued by the Hetman voeυoda—a tsarist official who headed the administration and the military forces of a city

wojewoda—the highest military and judicial official of the prov­inces of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth