The Uniate Church in Right-Bank Ukraine in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century: Paradoxes of Regional Adaptation

IHOR SKOCHYLIAS

Historiographical Observations: The Uniate Church as a Cocreator of the Ukrainian Eighteenth Century

Previous and present-day scholars usually considered and continue to consider the period from the end of the seventeenth to the first half of the eighteenth century primarily as the “Mazepa era,” the “Cossack baroque period” and the autonomy of the Hetmanate (together with the Zaporozhian Sich and Sloboda Ukraine).

This article is intended to draw attention to the role of the Uniate Church in the processes of the cultural and social adaptation of Right-Bank Ukraine (within the borders of the Bratslav and Kyiv palatinates) to the new realities of the “short” eighteenth century.

Scholars usually consider the changes that took place in the jurisdictional status of the Ruthenian parishes of Right-Bank Ukraine in the eighteenth century in denominational categories - as a switch by the faithful and clergy from Orthodoxy to the Union.⁶ An example of this traditional approach is an extensive article by Sophia Senyk, which describes religious conflicts in Dnipro Ukraine (which, in her interpretation, demonstrates an “extreme case in religious coercion” typical of Europe at the time) in the categories of “enforce the Union” on the local pop­ulation.⁷ Relying mainly on long-outdated literature and the corpus of sources, tendentiously selected by official Russian historiography during the nineteenth to early twentieth century (mostly from the history of the Orthodox Church), Senyk presents a complex range of social and religious processes in the region as a sequential chain of events that initially threatened Orthodoxy and subsequently grew into overt enforcement of the union (especially since the 1740s) and the bru­tal persecution of Orthodox believers.

The limitations of this denominational scheme of the history of religious life in eighteenth-century Right-Bank Ukraine becomes obvious when we turn to a much wider range of sources, including those from the internal life of the Uniate Church in the region. They show that the self-identification of the clergy and laity of the time was articulated not so much in the denominationally exclusive concepts of “Orthodox/Uniate,” as in the categories of a “mental mapping”⁹ territoriality (that is, belonging to one's “own” sacred geographical space), and regional identity. The application of the concept of a “cognitive map” to the ter­ritory of the Kyiv metropolitanate makes it possible to “materialize” narratives that have been unnoticed in written sources and little noticed in traditional his­toriography - the construction of space in people's minds, the perception by the community of the surrounding space, the imaginary divisions of societal terri­tories, and so forth.

Thus, the boundaries and the church-administrative affiliation of the Kyiv metropolitanate were determined not by geographical criteria but by the dura­bility of the forms of subordination of local Ruthenians to the hierarch.

Trends in the religious life of the Ruthenians of Right-Bank Ukraine in the eighteenth century are presented in innovative research categories in a mono­graph by the American scholar at the University of Illinois, Barbara Skinner,¹² as well as by Larry Wolff.¹³ Using the paradigms of conflictology and confessional- ization, Skinner traces the formation of the Ruthenian-Catholic identity and draws attention to the liturgical practices of the Uniates. The scholar rightly notes that historians have usually interpreted Orthodox-Uniate conflicts too simplis- tically, unjustifiably dramatizing them, and failing to see the decisiveness of the religious factor in the events of the Bar Confederation, the Koliivshchyna uprising, and the Haidamak movement. Describing the parish structure of the daily way of life of Ruthenians, she emphasizes that the victims of religious persecution were not only Orthodox believers but also Eastern-rite Catholics, and that both sides in the conflict resorted to violence. The researcher draws attention to the border status of the region and the presence of a natural barrier - the Dnipro waterway - which significantly affected the formation of different political loy­alties among the Orthodox and the Uniates.¹⁴

The Zhytomyr Union of 1715: Ecclesiastical Status of Right-Bank Ukraine and the Establishment of the Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Lev Kyshka in the Kyiv Region

After the de facto subordination of the Kyiv metropolitanate to the Moscow pa­triarchate in 1685-86, the organizational structures of the Ukrainian-Belarusian Orthodox Church, which remained within the Polish-Lithuanian Common­wealth, experienced a deep institutional crisis.

At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the pastoral and administrative authority in Right-Bank Ukraine of Bishop losyf Shumlians'kyi of Lviv (1668­1708), who had served as administrator of the Kyiv Orthodox metropolitanate here from 1694, was terminated as a result of the uprising of Semen Palii in 1702-04. The “second Khmel'nyts'kyi Uprising” not only stopped the spread of the union in the region for a few years, but also created the preconditions for the temporary restoration, after a quarter-century-long break, of the jurisdiction of the Kyiv Orthodox metropolitans over most of the territory of the Bratslav and Kyiv palatinates.¹⁶ The suppression of the uprising by Polish troops resulted in bloody massacres of both the rebels themselves and the civilian population. The entry of Russian troops into Right-Bank Ukraine in May 1704, who came to the aid of their ally in the Great Northern War, King August II of Poland, doomed the Palii uprising.¹⁷ At the same time, Mazepa's troops, who were advancing into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with the Muscovite army, succeeded in regaining control of a significant part of Right-Bank Ukraine.¹⁸

Records of pastoral visitations of churches in the Bratslav region in the first third of the eighteenth century clearly show that during the period from 1700 to 1715, the local clergy perceived this region, both in formal canonical terms and in fact, as a component of the Kyiv Orthodox Archeparchy.¹⁹ The control of the Or­thodox Church over the Bratslav region during this period is also indirectly con­firmed by the fact that the Bratslav clergy received ordination (usually in Kyiv) from Metropolitans Varlaam lasyns'kyi (1690-1707), loasaf Krokovs'kyi (1708­18), and Varlaam (Vonatovych, 1722-30).²⁰

Subsequent events that unfolded across the expanse of the Uniate Kyiv metropolitan archeparchy in the 1710s initially slowed the expansion of the Or­thodox jurisdiction of the Saint Sophia see in Kyiv, and then caused the Orthodox Church to lose direct influence over the Ruthenian parishes of the Bratslav and Kyiv palatinates for almost a century.

of the Bratslav palatinate on the left bank of the Buh (Southern) River (approx­imately 18,000 sq. km.). As a result of this deportation operation, which encom­passed most of the local population, the lands of the Bratslav region east of the Boh were depopulated.²¹ Therefore, it took many years to restore the demographic potential of the region.

The forced resettlement of the local population from the Right Bank coincided with the death of the bishop of Lviv losyf Shumlians'kyi in July 1708 and the as­cent to the Uniate metropolitan throne in 1714 of the energetic Lev Kyshka (1714­28). All these factors ultimately made possible the establishment in the next few years of the Union in Right-Bank Ukraine and the return of parishes in the Kyiv (Zhytomyr and Ovruch counties) and, in part, Bratslav palatinates to the metropolitan archeparchy, no longer Orthodox, but Uniate. The first step in in­stituting the pastoral jurisdiction of the Uniate metropolitan Lev Kyshka on the territory of Right-Bank Ukraine was the appointment of Ovruch archimandrite Fr. Klementii Domarads'kyi as the vicar general (ofitsial) of the Ukrainian part of the archeparchy.²² The transition of the clergy living in the Kyiv palatinate under the jurisdiction of Kyshka, which automatically meant the recognition of the supremacy of the Holy See, took place rather quickly and without apparent excesses, beginning in 1714 and ending the following year. Not later than De­cember 1714, Metropolitan Lev Kyshka also established control over the town of Radomyshl, the administrative center of the eparchial properties the Kyiv metropolitanate in Polisia.²³ The year 1715 is named as the date of the proclama­tion of the Union in the Kyiv region in the “Life of Kyshka.” His biographer drew special attention to the fact that the metropolitan personally received local vi- cars-archpriests into the bosom of the Ruthenian Catholic Church.²⁴ Thus began the regional tradition of the Zhytomyr Union of 1715, which became the basis of the ecclesiastical and sociocultural identity of the Kyiv Uniate archeparchy in Right-Bank Ukraine.²⁵

The administrative center of the Uniate Church in the Kyiv region was origi­nally the Ovruch Archimandry, whose archimandrite secretly entered into com­munion with the Holy See as far back as in March 1681. All Ovruch archimandrites in the first quarter of the eighteenth century simultaneously became vicars general of the Uniate metropolitan in the Kyiv palatinate. In August 1722, this office was assumed “according to the custom and rules of the Holy Eastern Church” by the Basilian priest, Andrii Benets'kyi, the Economos of the properties of the Volodymyr-Brest eparchy.²⁶ Benets'kyi was soon appointed (no later than 1727) also the vicar general of the Kyiv archieparchy (“official metropolii Kijowskiey”) - and court records of the Kyiv castle court mention him as a strong defender of the rights of the Ruthenian clergy from the oppression of the local nobility.²⁷

The final institutional approval of the Union in the Kyiv palatinate is associ­ated with the synod of the clergy of the Kyiv archeparchy in Zhytomyr on 14-16 September 1727 - probably the first such assembly of priests in Right-Bank Ukraine in the eighteenth century.²⁸ The acts of the synod (“Synodus Zyto- mirensis”) attest that its main purpose was the reception at the local level of the decrees of the Zamostia (Zamosc) provincial synod of 1720 by the “omnes de- canatus” of “soboru Kijowskiego” (Kyiv council), as well as the cultivation of a new Uniate identity among the vicars and parish clergy (all the participants in the synod made the Catholic profession of faith).²⁹ It is noteworthy that only priests of the Kyiv chapter-officialate (in the terminology of the time - the sobor [church council]) attended the Zhytomyr synod - no clergymen from the neigh­boring Bratslav cathedral chapter-officialate were present. Needless to say, this proves that the Bratslav region in the late twenties of the eighteenth century was not directly subject to the jurisdiction of Lev Kyshka as an ordinary of the Kyiv metropolitan archeparchy but was under the pastoral care of Lviv Uniate bishop Atanasii Sheptyts'kyi.

The 23rd decree of the Zhytomyr Synod of 1727 warned priests “that [none of them] should dare turn to ineligible pastors for ordination as presbyter.”³⁰ This may indicate attempts by the Uniate hierarchy not only to eliminate competition from the Orthodox, but also to minimize the vigorous pastoral activity in the re­gion under the jurisdiction of Sheptyts'kyi, who ordained dozens of new priests here, thus taking control over more and more parishes that previously belonged to Kyiv's Saint Sophia see. Some sources describe the difficulties faced by Metropolitan Lev Kyshka in extending his spiritual jurisdiction to the Kyiv palati­nate. For example, one of the court acts of the Radomyshl consistory from 1739 deals with Fr Avraam Skoruta, who failed to comply with the “decree of Metro­politan Kyshka from 1728.”³¹

The Institutional Confessionalization of the Region and the Formation of the Right-Bank Model of Slavia Unita

An important means of forming a new Uniate identity in Right-Bank Ukraine was the institutional confessionalization³² of the Ruthenian community in the region, which called for, first and foremost, close cooperation between the Church and local secular authorities - namely, palatinate and county administrations, dietines, town councils, parish patrons (primarily the nobility), and the military administration. No less important were religious instruction and the codification of the experience of faith, the disciplining of ritual practices, the existence of a relatively hermetic territorial space (“geographical isolate”) designed to prevent contacts between Ruthenian Catholics and Orthodox, and the use of effective tools of administrative and pastoral control over the life of the local Christianity community and the activity of Church organizations. Among the most successful methods of social disciplining in Right-Bank Ukraine in the i/3os-5os were gen­eral visitations, eparchial councils of the clergy, the metropolitan consistory, and the ecclesiastical court.

In their efforts to consolidate the union in Right-Bank Ukraine, Kyiv metro­politans usually relied on the support of the local nobility. A striking example of the confessionalization of their regional policy is the order of Teofila Jablon- owska, nee Sieniawska, dated 14 May 1733, concerning the founding of a “chapel or church” (most likely of the Latin rite) in her “Ukrainian hereditary estate” Lysianka. The document demonstrates the clearly denominational basis of Jablo- nowska's initiative, which discursively echoed the then exclusivist policy of the Roman Church. The noblewoman gives as her motive for founding a Catholic church not only “the proliferation of the praise of God” among the local nobility and Polish garrisons, but also “the education of the Ruthenian clergy, which is very ignorant,” and the conversion of the Ruthenian clergy to “holy union, the eradication of errors and schismatic opposition.”³³

Under Lev Kyshka's successor on the metropolitan throne, Atanasii Sheptyts'kyi (1729-46), there was, on the one hand, further integration of the parishes and vi­cariates in the Bratslav and Kyiv palatinates into the metropolitan archeparchy and the Uniate Church in general, and, on the other, their closer institutional and spiritual connection with the organizational structures of the Lviv eparchy. This was greatly facilitated by two large-scale general visitations by the Kyiv cathedral chapter-officialate, conducted in 1738-42 and 1746-47, and the creation circa 1730 of a shared consistory and ecclesiastical court for the Lviv and Kyiv eparchies. Despite the administrative registration in the late 1720s to early 1730s of Uniate parishes in Right-Bank Ukraine as part of the Kyiv cathedral chapter-officialate, they continued to be dependent on the Lviv episcopal see. In the period from 1730 to 1746, priests from the Kyiv region, together with the clergy of Bratslav re­gion, attended yearly eparchial councils of the Lviv eparchy, which were held in the Univ archimandry³⁴ at that time (their decisions were also binding on the ter­ritory of the metropolitan archeparchy³⁵), litigated cases in the Lviv ecclesiastical court, and received various orders from the Lviv general consistory.³⁶

The first pastoral inspection by Atanasii Sheptyts'kyi in Right-Bank Ukraine was taking place from November 1739 to January 1742. At that time, the Uniate churches in Polisia were inspected.³⁷ The next stage of this large-scale operation was the visitation in 1740-41 of the Kyiv vicar general Hedeon Kozubs'kyi and the Zhytomyr vicar Fr. Ivan Sledkevych of ten more Uniate vicariates.³⁸ This time, however, the inspection of the Uniate churches was not completed, because, ac­cording to the visitators, “the haidamaks appeared” in Terekhtemyriv, and there was “only danger in the wild fields all the way beyond the Smila [River], in the direction of Chyhyryn” in the Moshny vicariate.³⁹ Five years later, in the period from November 1746 to February 1747, an inspection of “Ukrainian vicariates” was led by the vicar general of the Kyiv archeparchy, Fr. lustyn Iliashevych. This visitation covered most of the Kyiv cathedral chapter-officialate and ended after the death of Metropolitan Sheptyts'kyi. Interestingly, it was conducted at the “request of the hereditary landlords of Ukrainian estates and the founders and patrons of churches, as well as pious people from the communities.”⁴⁰

The earliest information about the vicarial structure of the Kyiv Uniate archep­archy in Right-Bank Ukraine dates back to 1722, when the Register of Priests of the Kyiv Metropolitan Diocese (Komput Kaplanow w Dyecezyi Metropol[italney] Ki- jowsk[iey]) was compiled. According to this register, 227 Uniate parishes were under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Lev Kyshka at the time (of which 31 were vacant), covering the territory of Barashiv (23 parishes), Bilyliv (16), Bila Tserkva (35), Dymer (22), Korostyshiv (23), Lysianka-Korsun-Moshny (29), Ovruch (32), Pavoloch (former Fastiv) (44), and Chudniv (53) deanaries.⁴¹ As this list shows, they were all located in the Kyiv palatinate. A similar administrative-territorial structure of the Kyiv cathedral chapter-officialate also existed in August 1728, that is, shortly before the death of Kyshka and the transfer of the metropolitan throne to the bishop of Lviv Atanasii Sheptyts'kyi. The Clergy Register of the Kyiv Archieparchy (Elenchus Parochorum Diaecesis Kijovien[sis]), discovered in the last volume of Lev Kyshka's Diary, records 15 Uniate vicariates in the Kyiv region, numbering a total of 403 Uniate parishes, which is one and a half times more than there had been only six years earlier.⁴² As in the previous document, this register also makes no mention of any church from the territory of the Bratslav palatinate within the boundaries of the Kyiv Uniate eparchy.

The vicarial structure of the Kyiv cathedral chapter-officialate was reformed at the Univ Synod of 1738 on the initiative of Metropolitan Sheptyts'kyi. At that time, the network of Uniate vicariates in Right-Bank Ukraine (excluding the Brat­slav region) was determined to consist of 21 vicariates.⁴³ On the eve of his death, Atanasii Sheptyts'kyi sent the Holy See a report, dated 15 August 1746, on the canonical status of the Kyiv archeparchy. According to this account, at that time the Uniate Church on the territory of Right-Bank Ukraine comprised 17 Uniate vicariates with 580 parishes located in the Kyiv palatinate.⁴⁴ As in the Bratslav re­gion, intensive development of the parish network was underway on the territory of the Kyiv palatinate in the first half of the eighteenth century. An example of the successful establishment of new Ukrainian churches is the history of the founding of the Church of St Michael the Archangel in the village of Dorohynka in the Fastiv vicariate, which is currently an exhibit in the Museum of Folk Ar­chitecture and Life of Ukraine in Kyiv.⁴⁵

The pastoral and administrative activities of Kyiv metropolitans Lev Kyshka and Atanasii Sheptyts'kyi in Right-Bank Ukraine were aimed at modernizing and confessionalizing local Ruthenian society, which made possible the formation of the regional Kyiv-Bratslav model of the Slavia Unita⁴⁶ - a new cultural and reli­gious identity of Ruthenian Uniates in Right-Bank Ukraine. This model envis­aged, first of all, a search for an elastic balance between the Catholic “face” of the Kyiv archeparchy and its Slavic-Byzantine heritage. This allowed the Uniate Church, on the one hand, to remain part of the region's Ukrainian society, and, on the other, to recognize its belonging to universal Christianity.

The political result of this ecclesiastical model was the identification (occiden- talization) of the Uniate Church with the culture and social structure of the Sarmatian Commonwealth (figuratively speaking, the borders of the Kyiv metro­politanate coincided with the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian confederation). On the other hand, this involved legislative and actual restrictions for both Or­thodox and Uniates of their religious, cultural, and economic contacts with the Muscovite (Russian) state (above all, with Left-Bank Ukraine) and the southern territories, which were within the sphere of influence of the Ottoman Porte (in particular, Wallachia and Moldavia). “Technically,” the confessionalization of the Uniate Church was modeled on the reformation experience of post-Tridentine Latin Christianity, while mentally it was rooted in the then ongoing discourse of the Kyivan Christian tradition in its Catholic reading.

The institutional and spiritual basis of the Ruthenian Uniate revival was the Basilian order.⁴⁷ The Uniate monks managed to codify their almost century-old experience of living in communion with Rome and to define a new ideal of monastic piety. It was the Basilians who in the period under study formed the Uniate identity, playing a major role in the development by the spiritual elite of the “strategy of absorption” of the codes of the culture of the time. One of the most striking examples of the success of this ecclesiastical model was the appear­ance in Right-Bank Ukraine of a large network of almost forty Basilian monas­teries (including in Kaniv, Liubar, Ovruch, and Uman) and collegiums and seminaries that they maintained, where the children of poor nobility and towns­people and the sons of priests studied.⁴⁸

In the first half of the eighteenth century, the model of the Slavia Unita in the Kyiv and Bratslav regions was generally focused on preserving its Eastern Christian identity (“Ruthenian antiquity”) and developing its role as a repre­sentative of the local Ruthenian ethno-denominational community. Another source that nurtured the Uniate identity of the Kyiv archeparchy consisted of the Latin “innovations” that were gradually and almost imperceptibly to one generation introduced at various institutional levels. The appearance of “inno­vations” was due not only to the need to codify the new experience of existence in communion with the Holy See and the pressure of the Latin-rite adherents, but also the historical development of Christian culture at that time. A striking example of the Radomyshl Consistory’s use of new means of evangelization, borrowed from the Latin tradition, was the introduction by Metropolitan Lev Sheptyts'kyi in the Kyiv archeparchy in 1777 of the Christian greeting of “Praised be Jesus Christ!” (“Laudetur Jesus Christus!”) as an effective practice of social disciplining the faithful.⁴⁹

In contrast to the Belarusian-Lithuanian territories, Volhynia, and the Kholm (Chelm) region, the structure of the Uniate identity of the Ruthenians of Right­Bank Ukraine was not dominated by elements of Latin denominational emblems (Eucharistic adoration, papal indulgences, way of the cross, low masses, and so forth). This regional model of Slavia Unita was markedly dominated by “Ruthe- nian antiquity,” which had very blurred boundaries with the Orthodox subculture of the time and demonstrated opposition to the “cultural imperialism” of the Roman Catholic Church. The Kyiv-Bratslav Slavia Unita evinced limited accep­tance of the “codes” of Polish Latin culture, although it underwent in-depth oc- cidentalization in the late Baroque period,⁵⁰ including through the mediation of Rome, where a large part of the spiritual elite of the Uniate Church received its theological education and had its worldview shaped in papal colleges.

Intercultural Communication and the Problem of the Common Sociocultural Space of “Divided Rus'”

The sources of the time (I mean primarily official documents of the Kyiv and Pereiaslav Orthodox and Radomyshl Uniate consistories) clearly indicate the lim­ited nature of the measures taken by the Kyiv archeparchy to confessionalize the Ruthenian society of Right-Bank Ukraine. Despite the persistence of the Church administration, there is an absence of clear jurisdictional and denominational barriers in private and even institutional contacts between representatives of the Orthodox and Uniate clergy. To understand this phenomenon, let us turn to the paradigm popularized by the German scholar Thomas Kaufmann.⁵¹ He empha­sizes the importance of shifting the emphasis in the study of the phenomenon of confessionalization to such ecclesiastical concepts as transconfessionalism, inter- confessionalism, and intraconfessional pluralism (in the original: Interkonfession- alität - Transkonfessionalität - binnenkonfessionelle Pluralität). This approach, applied to the Kyiv archeparchy, opens up prospects for the inclusion in scholarly discourse of “invisible” to traditional history processes, which include intercon­fessional education and the mutual adaptation (inclusion) of different church communities in cultural exchange and interdenominational communication.⁵²

If we critically examine the concept of the “conflictology” of Orthodox-Uniate relations that has dominated for more than a century,⁵³ we will actually see the absence of distinct clear confessional barriers between the Ruthenians of the Or­thodox and Uniate faiths in the “confessional” eighteenth century. We see evidence of this in the diary of Vasyl' Hryhorovych-Bars'kyi,⁵⁴ a student of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, who visited Lviv in 1723 on his way to the holy places of the Middle East. In July 1723, together with his friend, student Iustyn Lennyts'kyi, Bars'kyi suddenly left the academy without completing his studies and entered Lviv's Jesuit college. In Lviv, the Jesuits treated both travelers as “Orthodox schismatics” from the “Kyiv forests”⁵⁵ and expelled them from this educational institution. How­ever, in their meetings with local Ruthenians Vasyl' Bars'kyi and his companion demonstrated flexibility in social behavior and ecclesiastical practice.

Both students were well-disposed toward not only ordinary Ruthenians in Lviv, but also toward the highest representatives of the Uniate clergy. Sincere human gratitude and warmth flow from Bars'kyi's description of his visit to St George's Cathedral and personal meetings with Bishop Atanasii Sheptyts'kyi and senior Church officials of the Lviv Uniate eparchy.⁵⁶ Bars'kyi's accounts of his partici­pation in Uniate divine services, confession by the superior of the Basilian monastery, visits to the relics of Saint Ioann Sochavs'kyi in Zhovkva, the Basilian monastery in Krekhiv, and a joint pilgrimage with a “widowed Uniate priest” to Rome do not fit into the modern denominational paradigm of “Uniate-Orthodox confrontation” in the eighteenth century. Moreover, they eloquently testify to the universality of the Kyiv Christian tradition and openness to dialogue between representatives of different ecclesiastical jurisdictions, which in the recent past had formed a single metropolitanate.

Recent studies⁵⁷ about the territorial origins of students of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in the second quarter of the eighteenth century attest that it has not been possible, at least at this time, to turn the Kyiv archeparchy into a denomi­nationally hermetic isolate of the Uniate hierarchy. Thus, a quarter of all students of the Mohyla Academy were natives of the Commonwealth, among whom the inhabitants of the Bratslav, Podilia, and Ruthenian palatinates predominated. Moreover, students from these regions far outnumbered the students of the Zamosc Academy. Interestingly, some of these “emigrants” were lay people and came from priestly families or belonged to the nobility.⁵⁸

The mutual inclusion of different Church communities in cultural exchange and interdenominational communication in Right-Bank Ukraine was facilitated by the activities of the Kyiv and Pereiaslav Orthodox consistories, which exerted significant influence on the spiritual life of the local Christian community (both laity and clergy). This influence is very clearly reflected in the legal cases of the Kyiv archeparchy’s consistory deposited in this consistory’s oldest record book for 1737-41. Contributing to the quite intensive contacts between the priests who were under the jurisdiction of the Uniate metropolitan and the Kyiv Orthodox see was the absence among the majority of the parish clergy in Right-Bank Ukraine (at least in the first half of the eighteenth century) of a clear confessional identity. This made it possible to maintain, and often nurture, personal and in­stitutional ties between the Uniate clergy and the Orthodox on the other side of the Dnipro River. Pilgrimages to Kyiv (in particular to the Cave Monastery) were especially popular among the laity and parish clergy.⁵⁹

A striking example of such contacts and ideas is the case of a priest from the Church of St Nicholas the Wonderworker in Chudniv, Fr. Avraam Skoruta (Sko- ruta), which was litigated in the metropolitan’s court in January 1739. As it turned out, Fr. Skoruta publicly ignored the religious and administrative prerogatives of the primate of the Uniate Church, Atanasii Sheptyts'kyi. He did not take part in the vicarial councils (soborchyky) of the Uniate clergy of the Chudniv deanary; did not obtain the Holy Myrrh blessed by the Uniate metropolitan; threatened his immediate superior, the vicar of Chudniv; “schismatized by looking for a parish in Kyiv for himself”; ignored fulfilling pastoral instructions and the con­sistory’s summons to appear in the ecclesiastical court; urged local priests to trans­fer under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox metropolitan of Kyiv; and, finally, left his parish for a long time and “pastored the Muscovites.”⁶⁰

Court records also document manifestations of denominational Orthodox consciousness in some Right-Bank parishes, which were part of the Kyiv Uniate archeparchy. For example, in 1737, Fr. losyf Vakulenko, a parish priest from Ostroh, reviled another priest with “obscene words, calling [him] a cursed Uniate,” and publicly denied the Catholic dogma of Filioque.⁶¹ That same year, another priest, Fr. Vasyl' Andriievs'kyi, accused the founder of one of the churches that “[he] took in a Uniate dog [to the parish].”⁶² According to another court case, part of the clergy refused to include “Uniate innovations” in religious services. Thus Fr. Moisei Leontovych, a parish priest of Slobidka (Sloboda), was summoned to the spiritual court

for conducting church services not in the manner required, for not praying to God for his archpastor during the Divine Liturgy but for a foreign one instead; for keeping a foreign antimins and conducting services on it and hiding away the antimins of his own [Uniate] archpastor; for calling his archpastor a cursed Uniate,” as well as for the practice of the “closing of the Royal Doors” during the Divine Liturgy, causing “the Romans discomfort.”⁶³

Another priest, Fr Ivan losyfenko, parish priest of Husachivka, was accused by the court of refusing to obtain the Holy Myrrh from the Uniate dean, of ignoring calls to attend soborchyky (minor councils) of the clergy, and of welcoming Orthodox clergy in his parish.⁶⁴

In the second half of the 1730s, even the mid-level clergy of the administra­tive office of the Uniate Church in Right-Bank Ukraine avoided close institu­tional ties with their primate - Metropolitan Atanasii Sheptyts'kyi. In partic­ular, the Horodyshche parish priest and Smila archpriest, Fr. Ivan, was suspected by the consistory of allegedly “calling union with the Roman Church cursed” and that “[he] made a list of parishioners who would move beyond the Muscovite border.”⁶⁵

The above examples of opposition to the cultural-religious model of Slavia Unita and open-type interdenominational pluralism require a deeper analysis of the internal processes of differentiation in the Ruthenian society of Right­Bank Ukraine, where the development of exclusivist tendencies was limited by a geographical factor - the presence of the Great Frontier.⁶⁶ These factors directly influenced the emergence of local confessional identities tied to a territory that did not always coincide in the historical context of Bratslav and Kyiv regions with ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Instead, the particular nature of the formation of the regional version of Slavia Unita during the eighteenth century was due to the incompleteness of the confessionalization of “parish civilization,” which did not allow the Uniate spiritual elite to build a closed confessional community with a distinct Ruthenian Catholic identity. In the end, this made it possible to preserve the unity of Kyivan Christianity, at least at the level of the laity and the parish clergy.

From the Eucharistic Model to Territorial Administration: Sacred Space of the Bratslav and Southern Kyiv Regions and Territorial Patriotism

In the first half of the eighteenth century, there was an attempt by the then Uniate hierarchy to implement a broader program of the “civilizational development” of the vast expanses of “Ukraine” - the Bratslav and Southern Kyiv regions, which were being intensively colonized at that time⁶⁷ - as well as in-depth Christian­ization of the local, mostly Ukrainian in origin, population, in accordance with the Slavia Unita confessional model. Given the political realities of the time, until the beginning of the 1760s, the Uniate Church in Right-Bank Ukraine did not actually experience significant competition from Orthodox Church struc­tures, usually enjoying the support of the royal court and the magnate class in its missionary plans. Thus, the only competitors for control over the local East- ern-Christian communities in these areas were the Uniate hierarchs - the Lviv bishops and Kyiv metropolitans.

Regardless of the personal initiative and pastoral efforts of the bishops, the or­ganized measures taken by their consistories to discipline the Ruthenians, and the support of the founders of Uniate parishes, the territory of the Bratslav and Southern Kyiv regions during the first half of the eighteenth century was quickly covered by a dense network of new churches and settlements. During this period, no other Latin, Orthodox, or Uniate eparchy in the Polish-Lithuanian Common­wealth underwent such dynamic development of the parish network and growth of the size of its flock. Both the Saint George see of Lviv and the Radomyshl metropolitan consistory were equally eager to take control of this impressive pro­cess of “spontaneous evangelization” of Right-Bank Ukraine, because it made it possible to radically increase the number of their subordinate congregations and clergy and significantly replenish their church treasuries, whose main source of cash revenue was the cathedraticum (katedratyk) paid annually by parish priests.

The institutional consolidation of the Uniate Church in Right-Bank Ukraine in the i7ios-3os was accompanied by the “return” of the Lviv eparchy to the South­ern Kyiv and Bratslav regions. The Saint George's see established itself in the Brat­slav region after a pastoral visitation in 1723-24, and this large-scale “absorption” of the region was legitimized by the Synod of Zamostia (Zamosc) in 1720. At this assembly, Metropolitan Kyshka placed the Bratslav and some Kyiv vicariates under the temporary jurisdiction of Bishop Atanasii Sheptyts'kyi of Lviv, primarily be­cause of the practical pastoral needs of the Uniate Church in Right-Bank Ukraine, where an intensive spontaneous colonization was taking place with the partici­pation of the population of the predominantly Slavic-Byzantine rite.

After the death in December 1746 of Atanasii Sheptyts'kyi, the bishop of Lviv and metropolitan of Kyiv, the temporary administrator of the Lviv eparchy, Bishop Onufrii Shumlians'kyi of Peremyshl, at the request of the Roman Curia, took a number of practical measures to return the Bratslav region to the metropolitan see.⁶⁸ In his practical activity, Shumlians'kyi had to take into ac­count the sentiments of Saint George's see, because the Lviv spiritual elite did not want to hear about the loss of part of what they considered to be their sacred (canonical) space. On 4 June 1750, the new bishop of Lviv, Lev Sheptyts'kyi, suc­ceeded in obtaining a declaration from the Tribunal of the Apostolic Nunciature in Warsaw prohibiting the metropolitan “to perform any jurisdictional acts in future concerning these decanates.” The Nunciature Tribunal indirectly sided with the bishop of Lviv by issuing a decree in his favor on 27 February 1751, tem­porarily removing the primate of the Ruthenian Church from administering the Bratslav region.⁶⁹

In seeking the return of the Bratslav region to the Lviv eparchy, Lev Sheptyts'kyi did not miss the opportunity to point out the geographical realities of Right­Bank Ukraine, which, in his opinion, made it difficult for the metropolitan of Kyiv to take pastoral care of local Uniate communities: “the [Bratslav] decanates in question are located at a distance of almost three hundred Polish miles from the residence of the current metropolitan.”⁷⁰ According to Church statistics, this involved about five hundred churches, which formed the parish network of the Kyiv archeparchy in the middle of the eighteenth century.⁷¹

To confirm his rights to the Bratslav region, the bishop of Lviv somewhat un­expectedly turned to the text of the then famous Prince Lev Danylovych's found­ing charter of the Dormition Cathedral in Halych in 1301.⁷² The arguments of the canonists of the metropolitanate curia, sent to the Congregation for the Propa­gation of the Faith, are unique evidence of the legal consciousness of the Uniate elite of the day and their various “techniques” of articulating their Church-his­torical memory of the Princely Era to achieve quite pragmatic goals.⁷³

Lev Sheptyts'kyi began to take practical administrative measures to retain the disputed territory. The first such step was Sheptyts'kyi's invitation of the vicars of the Bratslav region to his first post-enthronement eparchial synod, which took place in Perehinsk on 6-15 May 1750. Five of the then ten Bratslav region's vicars took part in it.⁷⁴ In addition to coercive measures, Sheptyts'kyi used his broad ordination privileges to influence the clergy of the Bratslav region. The bishop took any opportunity to confer the Sacrament of Holy Orders on candidates from this region, without documenting these prelatic acts in the records of the Lviv consistory because of the prohibition of the Holy See.⁷⁵

Despite the mobilization of all his resources in Podilia and Right-Bank Ukraine, Lev Sheptyts'kyi gradually lost his influence among the clergy of the Bratslav vi­cariate (krylos). This is clearly evidenced by the content of his pastoral letter of 10 January 1752. As we learn from the letter, at that time, all thirteen vicars of the Bratslav cathedral chapter had already transferred under the metropolitan's ju­risdiction and ignored Sheptyts'kyi's order to come to Nemyriv to swear obedi­ence to Bishop Lev.⁷⁶ Thus the pastoral and administrative efforts and lawsuits of Lev (Sheptyts'kyi) were unrewarded by success. He was forced to recognize the loss of the Bratslav krylos both in fact and canonically. At the beginning of January 1754, the bishop of Lviv sent his Bratslav-Bar vicar general, Tymofii Matkovs'kyi, the decree of the Roman Curia that the “decanates of the Bratslav palatinate” be­longed to the Kyivan metropolitanate to be publicly announced to the local clergy and laity. Sheptyts'kyi’s pastoral letter of 8 January 1754 emphasized the recogni­tion of the decision of the Holy See, to integrate the Bratslav region into the Kyivan metropolitanate.⁷⁷

Another contender for the Bratslav region was the metropolitan see, which substantiated its rights to the region with both canonical and historical argu­ments, as well as by practical administrative measures to take control of this re­gion.⁷⁸ The official transfer of the metropolitan’s residence from the distant town of Vilnius to Radomyshl in Kyivan Polisia, where the administration of the ex­tensive estates of the primate of the Ruthenian Church were located, helped to strengthen the position of the Kyiv metropolitan as the ruling ordinary of his eparchy in Right-Bank Ukraine.⁷⁹ The metropolitan consistory, and the office of the Kyiv vicar general were also transferred to Radomyshl.⁸⁰

The record-books of the metropolitan consistory in Radomyshl (Acta Consis- torialia), in which the administrative orders and other pastoral activities of the primate of the Uniate Church, Florian Hrebnyts'kyi (1747-62) were recorded, re­veal the great attention devoted to the Bratslav region by the metropolitan’s of­ficials. Among the several hundred acts issued by Hrebnyts'kyi during the first four years of his pastorate, almost a third relate to the vicariates of the Bratslav officialate.⁸¹ In the years 1747-48 Hrebnyts'kyi, in order to enlist the support of the middle level of the administrative office of the Uniate Church in the Bratslav region, carried out a real “personnel revolution” in the region, removing most of the vicars appointed there at various times by Lviv prelates.⁸² Not trusting them, the metropolitan tried to install his personally devoted minions in the Bratslav region. A striking example of this new policy of the Radomyshl consistory was the high-profile case of the Rashkiv vicar Oleksii Nalyvaiko (Nalyvaichenko), who was deliberately removed from office by metropolitan officials, groundlessly ac­cusing him of “various excesses.”⁸³

The decisive role in the assumption of control over the Bratslav region by the Kyiv metropolitan was played by the then bishop of Kholm, Pylyp Felitsian Volod- kovych, whom Florian Hrebnyts'kyi appointed as his vicar general for Right-Bank Ukraine on 1 March 1751.⁸⁴ Volodkovych’s activity shows that, like his opponent, the Lviv bishopric, the metropolitan curia used “pastoral coercion” and outright violence to take complete control of the Bratslav region. In particular, the real “fights without rules” were revealed at a meeting of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in May 1753, as a result of a petition from the Lviv bishop. Sheptyts'kyi, among other things, complained about Volodkovych’s brutal actions against his Bar-Bratslav vicar general Tymofii Matkovs'kyi.⁸⁵ Despite the accusa­tions of violence made against his officials, Metropolitan Hrebnyts'kyi insisted to the Roman Curia that “with respect to the [Bratslav] decanates, he did every­thing properly and correctly, in accordance with the law and the norms of jus­tice.”⁸⁶ The largest-scale action to establish the real pastoral authority of the new metropolitan, Florian Hrebnyts'kyi, in Right-Bank Ukraine was the general vis­itation of 1750-53. The inspection of the Uniate churches was announced by the metropolitan on 2 January 1750, and the consistory charged Fr Mykhailo Pry- movych with conducting it.⁸⁷

The success of the Kyiv metropolitan in taking control of the Bratslav region and its real support by the local clergy and, most likely, by the laity, is evidenced by the opening, no later than the beginning of June 1753, of the Bratslav Uniate consistory (Consistor[ia] Metropolitan[ana] Braclav[iensia]), directly subordinate to Florian Hrebnyts'kyi. Throughout the second half of 1753 to the beginning of 1754, sources consistently record the appearance in Church usage of “akt metropolitalnych bradawskich,”⁸⁸' which laid the legal basis for the re-subordina­tion of the local clergy and faithful to the Bratslav vicar general. An analysis of entries in the record-book of the ecclesiastical court of the Radomyshl Uniate consistory for 1754-56 provide convincing evidence that at that time the parish clergy of the Bratslav cathedral chapter were completely controlled by the metropolitan’s officials, headed by Felitsian Volodkovych. It was in the consistory books of Radomyshl, and not Lviv, that the priests of the Bratslav region entered their ordination references, erection charters, ordination certificates, acts of as­signment to a parish (stavleni hramoty), and other documents.⁸⁹

Evidence of the fact that the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Florian Hrebnyts'kyi extended over the whole territory of the Bratslav region was the participation of all thirteen vicars of the Bratslav cathedral chapter-officialate in the eparchial synod of the clergy of the Kyiv and Bratslav palatinates in Radomyshl on 5 June 1754.⁹⁰ Public support for the idea of the jurisdictional resubordination of the Bratslav region is attested to by the statement of the clergy of the Bratslav cathe­dral chapter-officialate in 1755, bearing the signatures of parish priests and vicars, about their desire to remain under the omophorion of the Kyiv archpastors, and not the Lviv bishops. The de facto refusal of the Uniate clergy to obey the bishop of Lviv⁹¹ opened the way to the ultimate transition of the Bratslav region under the control of the Radomyshl consistory. This territory remained part of the metropolitan archeparchy until the official liquidation of the Union in Right­Bank Ukraine at the end of the eighteenth century.

The territorial confrontation between the Lviv eparchy and the metropolitan throne in 1747-54 did not mean the creation of a visible dividing line between the two ecclesiastical jurisdictions in the Bratslav region that changed its configuration depending on an increase in influence of one or the other of the parties to the con­flict in the region. In fact, as an analysis of sources shows, the dividing line ran be­tween individual parishes, vicars, priests, founders, and even lay persons. Therefore, the assumption of control of a microregion by Hrebnyts'kyi or Sheptyts'kyi de­pended on a number of subjective factors - the position of the local nobility and the activity of the townspeople and Church brotherhoods. However, probably the major role was played by the personal relations of the parish clergy with their pas­tor, which were manifested in their receiving from him ordination to the priest­hood, nomination and installation charters, antimins for the altar of a given church, and so forth.

Also important were the support of the parish founder for the parish priest's choice of “his” hierarch, as well as the jurisdictional orientation of the vicars- archpriests, on whom the village pastors depended administratively, inasmuch as the vicars provided them with the Holy Myrrh, informed them of the instruc­tions of the supreme ecclesiastical authority, and provided the means of internal communication and consolidation of the local priesthood. Ultimately, these were the factors that created the ambivalence of hierarchical control over the Bratslav region, wherein the same clergymen were simultaneously subject to different Uni­ate bishops. Until the final decision of the Roman Curia in 1754, this made it im­possible to resolve the territorial conflict solely by means of “pastoral coercion.”

To support Metropolitan Hrebnyts'kyi, some hereditary landlords (founders) of parishes provided ordination references for candidates loyal to the metropoli­tan.⁹² Sheptyts'kyi's supporters did the same, providing ordination references for him for clerics loyal to the Lviv bishop. It is in such letters of recommendation (“formats”) that we come across rare, but extremely intriguing public declarations by the nobility of Right-Bank Ukraine of a kind of regional patriotism.⁹³ Thus, Felitsian of Bezhyn Bezhynski, the steward of Ovruch, in sending ordination ref­erence to Lev Sheptyts'kyi in 1750 for a candidate for the vacant church of Saint Michael the Archangel in the town of Shavulykha of the Uman vicariate, treats the territory on which the parish he founded is located as land that “from long ago has been part of the Bratslav eparchy of the Greek-Roman-Uniate rite.” At the same time, identifying the same territory in the categories of the state admin­istrative system, the nobleman Bezhyns'kyi denies it inclusion in the Bratslav palatinate, locating Shavulykha “in the palatinate and county of Kyiv.”⁹⁴

The confrontation during the period from 1747 to 1754 was a good opportunity for the local nobility and clergy to “recall” their particular historical tradition, and in the event of its absence, to construct a new narrative about the region's past. This ecclesiastical-historical memory not only served the intellectual needs of the “official” version of the status of the Bratslav region - confirming the rights of Lviv or Radomyshl to disputed vicariates - but also, regardless of the intention of its authors, fueled local territorial patriotism.

Thanks to the acts of the Roman Curia, we know much more about the position of the part of the Bratslav nobility that supported Lev Sheptyts'kyi. It was with the help of the local nobility that the bishop of Lviv gained a favorable attitude toward his territorial claims among the magnates, at the royal court, and, in part, in the Warsaw nunciature.⁹⁵

At first, the Bratslav conflict did not arouse much interest in the Holy See, which hoped that its participants would come to a mutual understanding on their own. When this did not happen, the case was referred to the Tribunal of the Warsaw Nunciature. On 27 February 1751, the auditor-general of the Holy See and its ordinary judge, Flavius Chisius, publicly announced for the first time that “Metropolitan of Rus' Florian Hrebnyts'kyi presented his claims to the Bratslav decanate in the Kamianets eparchy, which is rightfully governed by the Bishop of Lviv and Kamianets Lev Sheptyts'kyi.”⁹⁶ The trial of the “Bratslav case” in the Tribunal of the Warsaw Nunciature began with the fact that Metropolitan Hreb­nyts'kyi was forbidden to independently assume jurisdiction over the disputed Bratslav cathedral chapter. However, in the course of the trial, the court came to a preliminary conclusion that Sheptyts'kyi did not have “valid legal or factual proof” of his right to administer this region, since “the current metropolitan and his predecessors had for many centuries - either themselves or through someone else of their choice - controlled [these] decanates and churches.”⁹⁷ On the basis of the decision of the Apostolic Nunciature in Warsaw, in early Decem­ber 1751, all the vicariates of the Bratslav region were transferred “to the true, obvious, and actual possession of our Kyiv metropolitan see, to which they have belonged for centuries.”⁹⁸

Not satisfied with this, the metropolitan consistory in Radomyshl sought to transfer the “case of the Bratslav decanates” out of the hands of the Tribunal of the Apostolic Nunciature directly to the Roman Curia.⁹⁹ The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith first pronounced its verdict in September 1751.¹⁰⁰ After a lengthy clarification of the circumstances of the conflict, the Roman cardinals held a meeting on 7 May 1753, specifically dedicated to the subject of “Kyiv jurisdiction.” At this meeting, it was decided to award the Bratslav region to the Kyiv metropolitan.¹⁰¹ The minutes of the meeting and its decrees, which were published in the 1950s by Fr. Atanasii (Velykyi), contain unique evidence of the ecclesiastical, historical, and cultural-civilizational arguments offered by the parties to the conflict to prove their rights to the Bratslav region. In addition to the then popular discourse about the genesis of Christianity in Rus “around 990,” the document also presents a historical version of the appearance of the organizational structure of the Eastern Church in Right-Bank Ukraine.¹⁰² In a letter to the papal nuncio in Warsaw, Alberico Archinto (1746-54), the Roman cardinals drew attention to the “appeal of the Bratslav people,” warning against possible “disorders between these people, resulting in disturbing confusion and disorder [del tumulto fra quelle genti, e derivarne moleste confusioni, e discordini]” The congregation instructed the nuncio to take practical measures to ensure the legal transfer of the “Bratslav decanates” under the administration of the Kyiv metropolitan.¹⁰³

Basically, the papal throne played a leading role in resolving the Bratslav ter­ritorial conflict. Despite some doubts and vacillation, it was the institutions of the See of Rome - the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and the Warsaw Nunciature - that acted as the arbiters, whose legal and practical argu­ments proved acceptable to both sides. In the end, this made it possible to stabilize the situation in the region and establish cooperation between the largest Uniate eparchies in Ukraine at that time.

The struggle for the Bratslav region between the Lviv eparchy and the Radomyshl Uniate consistory and their transition to the jurisdiction of the Kyiv metropolitan in the middle of the eighteenth century attest to fairly radical changes in the then existing notions of geographical space, linear boundaries, and the role of the local hierarch, his court, and office in the organization of the territory. The traditional Eucharistic model emphasized the key role of the ruling hierarch in organizing the territory of the diocese. From the beginning of the eighteenth century, this model had to compete with modern and simultaneously denominational approaches and concepts. They were based on purely adminis­trative approaches, and one of their main goals was to create confessionally her­metic “geographical isolates.” By the middle of the eighteenth century, as the course of the Bratslav conflict showed, these new ecclesiastical techniques of “or­ganizing the territory” began to prevail. Now the eparchy to which a parish be­longed was determined not so much by the inscription on the lintel of the church door about its consecration by the ruling hierarch, as by the presence of a local priest or parish church in some office register.

The ambivalent jurisdictional status of the Bratslav cathedral chapter, which was underscored by the territorial conflict of 1747-54, weakened the local clergy's consciousness of their spiritual and sacramental unity with competing pastors - the metropolitan of Kyiv and the bishop of Lviv. The conflict also weakened the institutional ties of the Bratslav clergy with both the Saint George's eparchy and the metropolitan see in Radomyshl. Both factors partly explain the fairly rapid spread of the Orthodox movement in Right-Bank Ukraine since the early 1760s and the transition of most Uniate parishes under the control of the Pereiaslav bishop.

© © ©

On the whole, the Uniate hierarchy failed to realize the large-scale confessional- ization process of Right-Bank Ukraine. During the eighteenth century, it was limited by the frontier status of the region and the dominance at the parish level of a common religious cultural code (“Kyiv-Christian tradition”), and in the sec­ond half of the century, it became impossible in light of the intensification of the foreign policy of the Russian Empire and Orthodox proselytism (“missionary action”). This did not allow the Uniate spiritual elite to build a closed denomi­national community with a distinct Ruthenian Catholic identity Slavia Unita. This circumstance obviously contributed to the preservation of the unity of Ruthenian Christian culture, at least at the level of the laity and the parish clergy.

Translated from the Ukrainian by Marta Skorupsky

NOTES

1 Drawing on the theories of Western scholars, who emphasized the need for a cultural interpretation of the history of world civilization, the concept of “religious culture” with regard to the history of Ukraine was popularized by Frank Sysyn (Frank E. Sysyn, “The Formation of Modern Ukrainian Religious Culture: The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in Religion and Nation

in Modern Ukraine (Edmonton-Toronto, 2003), 1-22). In the apt words of Professor laroslav Isaiievych, Ruthenian pre-modern culture presupposed “the coexistence and interaction of the remnants of the medieval heritage (Byzantine-Slavic and Western Neo-Scholasticism) and baroque learning (which retained much from the Renaissance), and finally the emergence of pre-Enlightenment ideology and the Enlightenment.” See laroslav Isaiievych, “Osnovy relihiinoho zhyttia i kul'tury na Ukraini (do kintsia XVIII st.),” in Belarus, Lithuania, Polonia, Ukraine: International Conference, Rome, 28 April - 6 May 1990 (Lublin-Rome, 1994), 171.

2 As shown by the pioneering studies of Professor Jacek Staszewski, the Khmel'nyts'kyi Uprising, the “Swedish Deluge,” and the “Saxon period” did not represent only decline and regression. (We have in mind primarily such fundamental monographs as Jacek Staszewski, August II Mocny [Wroclaw, 1998]; Idem, AugustIIISas [Wroclaw 1989]; Idem, Jak Polskeprzemienic w kraj kwitnqcy... Studia i szkice z czasow saskich [Olsztyn, 1997]; Idem, O miejsce w Europie: Stosunki Polski i Saksonii z Francjq na przelomie XVII i XVIII wieku [Warsaw, 1973]).

3 The role of the Kyiv metropolitanate as the representative of the “Ruthenian nation” in the Polish-Lithuanian state is emphasized by Andrzej Gil and Ihor Skoczylas, Koscioly Wschodnie w panstwie polsko-litewskim wprocesie przemian i adaptacji: metropolia kijowska w latach 1458-1795 (Lublin-Lviv, 2014), 36-46, 49-56.

4 One of the best synthetic surveys of the trends of the day in the religious life of Christian Europe was the collective work Die Geschichte des Christentums: Religion-Politik-Kultur, bd. 10 (Freiburg-Basel-Vienna, 2000), 233-86.

5 This conclusion is based on the results of a large-scale research project initi­ated by the Institute for the Historical Geography of the Catholic Church in Poland of the Catholic University of Lublin that were presented at the Inter­national Conference of the Commission Internationale d’Histoire et d’Etude du Christianisme (cihec) in Lviv and Lublin in September 2007, see “Dzi- alalnosc naukowa iesw,” Instytut Europy Srodkowo-Wschodniej, accessed

6 November 2020, http://www.iesw.lublin.pl/dzialalnosc.php#konau. In the lands of the Polish Crown, Catholic churches of the Eastern rite also made up the majority, see statistical calculations in Bogumil Szady, Geografia struk­tur religijnych i wyznaniowych w Koronie w IIpolowie XVIII wieku (Lublin, 2010), 206.

6 The latest summary of current scientific scholarly knowledge about the phe­nomenon of the union in Right-Bank Ukraine is the comprehensive essay by Mykhailo Dovbyshchenko, “Uniia v Kyivs'komu ta Bratslavs'komu voievodst- vakh Rechi Pospolytoi XVIII st. (zahal'nyi ohliad),” in Arkhiv Ukrains’koi Tserkvy, series 1, Doslidzhennia, no. 1, Istoriia Unii na Kyivshchyni 1596-1839 rr. (Lviv, 2011), 102-202.

7 Sophia Senyk, “Religious Conflict in Dnepr Ukraine in the 18th Century,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 73 (1) (2007): 19, 58.

8 Ibid., 20. In support of her reasoning, the author cites numerous examples of persecution of parish clergy by officials of Uniate bishops in Right-Bank Ukraine (ibid., 21-3), which, however, are taken mainly from Orthodox sources and are very rarely compared with similar testimony of the Uniates (ibid., 58-9).

9 Mental cartography is defined as an abstract concept that encompasses the mental and spiritual abilities that enable us to collect, organize, recall, and process information about the surrounding space. See, for example, Roger M. Downs and David Stea, Maps in Minds: Reflections on Cognitive Mapping (New York, 1977); Edward C. Tolman, “Cognitive Maps in Rats and Men,” Psy­chological Review 55 (1948): 189-208. According to one of the modern defini­tions, this paradigm should be interpreted as a person's subjective internal idea of a part of the surrounding space, which, however, may be inaccurate and distorted, see Juval Portugali, ed., The Construction of Cognitive Maps (Dortrecht, 1996).

10 The concept of Eucharistic ecclesiology has been best articulated by the mod­ern Orthodox theologian: Kallistos (Ware), “The Church of God: Our Shared Vision,” Logos 34, nos 1-2 (1993): 10-29.

11 According to the ideas of the time, all the spiritual and administrative func­tions performed by the bishop were a manifestation of the communion and unity of the local Christian community, headed by the ruling local hierarch. For more detail on this, see Ihor Skochylias, “From Sacred Space to Adminis­trative Model of Church Governing: The Organization of the Territory of the Halych (Lviv) Eparchy in the Medieval and Early Modern Period,” in Andrzej Gil and Witold Bobryk, eds., On the Border of the Worlds: Essays about the Orthodox and Uniate Churches in Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages and the Modern Period (Siedlce-Lublin, 2010), 11-43. That such a model of the “orga­nization” of sacred space also existed in Bratslav and Kyiv regions is evi­denced by the church sources of the time used in the article. Charters of ordination for new priests, charters of appointment (installation) of priests in parishes, blessed antimins (altar cloths) for the altars of Uniate churches, and the Holy Myrrh received from the episcopal see were the external public sacred signs that determined the jurisdictional status of a particular parish and marked its geographical location within the organizational structure

of the Kyiv Archeparchy.

12 Barbara Skinner, The Western Front of the Eastern Church: Uniate and Ortho­dox Conflict in Eighteenth-century Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia (DeKalb, Ill. 2009), 42-87. See also Idem, “Borderlands of Faith: Reconsider­ing the Origins of a Ukrainian Tragedy,” Slavic Review 64, no. 1 (2005): 88-116.

13 Larry Wolff, “The Uniate Church and the Partitions of Poland: Religious Sur­vival in an Age of Enlightened Absolutism,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 26, nos 1-4 (2002-2003): 153-244.

14 Skinner, The Western Front of the Eastern Church, 226-34.

15 For greater detail on this, see Ihor Skochylias, “'Nichyia terytoriia': iurysdykt- siinyi status i suspil'no-pravove stanovyshche Kyivs'koi pravoslavnoi mytropolii na Pravoberezhnii Ukraini (1675-1715 roky),” in Ivan Mazepa i mazepyntsi: istoriia ta kul'tura Ukrainy ostann'oi tretyny XVII-pochatku XVIII stolit'. Naukovyi zbirnyk (Lviv, 2011), 167-82.

16 Instytut rukopysu Natsional’noi biblioteky Ukrainy im. VI. Vernadskoho (Manuscript Institute of the National Library of Ukraine; hereinafter - ir nbu), f. XVIII, no. 143, ark. 1. The prelude to the rebellion was the constitu­tion of the Diet of June 1699 on abolishing the “Cossack militia” in Right­Bank Ukraine. Without waiting for the reaction of the Cossacks, the army of the Polish Crown soon captured a number of cities in the region. See Taras Chukhlib, Kozats’kyi ustrii Pravoberezhno'i Ukrainy (ostannia chvert’XVII st.) (Kyiv, 1996), 23-4, 64.

17 Tat'iana G. Tairova-Iakovleva, ed., Getman Ivan Mazepa: Dokumenty iz arkhivnykh sobranii Sankt-Peterburga (St Petersburg, 2007), 1: 33, no. 55; Mykola Krykun, “Zhin naselennia z Pravoberezhno'i Ukrainy v Livoberezhnu 1711-1712 rokiv (do pytannia pro polityku Petra I stosovno Ukrainy,” in Mizh viinoiu i radoiu. Kozatstvo Pravoberezhno'i Ukrainy v druhii polovyni XVII- na pochatku XVIIIstolittia: Statti i materialy (Kyiv, 2006), 393-5; Jan Perdenia, Stanowisko Rzeczypospolitej szlacheckiej wobec sprawy Ukrainy na przelomie XVII-XVIII w. (Wroclaw-Warsaw-Cracow, 1963), 84, 107-90.

18 Tairova-Iakovleva, Getman Ivan Mazepa, 155-60.

19 Natsional'nyi muzei im. Andreia Sheptyts’koho u L’vovi. Viddil rukopysnyi ta starodrukovanoi knyhy, fond “Rukopysy latyns 'ki” (Andrei Sheptyts'kyi Na­tional Museum in Lviv. Department of Manuscripts and Old-Printed Books. “Latin manuscripts” Collection; hereinafter - nml), Rkl-11, ark. 332 zv., 336 zv., 354, 355, 360.

20 nml, Rkl-11, ark. 327-27 zv., 330, 336, 362 zv., 364, 365.

21 Krykun, “Zhin naselennia,” 395-403, 419-20, 422, 435, 439-40.

22 Arkhiv Iugo-Zapadnoi Rossii, izdavaemyi Vremennoiu kommissieiu dlia razbora drevnikh aktov, vysochaishe uchrezdennoiu pri Kievskom, Podol’skom i Volyn- skom general-gubernatore (hereinafter - Arkhiv IuZR), part 1, vol. 4 (Kyiv, 1871), 373-4, no. CLXVII.

23 Leonid Tymoshenko, Z istorii Uniats ’koi Tserkvy na Kyivshchyni (XVI-XIX st.) (Kyiv, 1997), 26.

24 “Przyczynil P[an] Bog Jego X|icdza| Leona sczcsciem y aestymacya, ktora mial etiam u disunitow diecaesiey Kijowskiey, bo z wo[iewo]dztwa Ki- jowskie[g]o powiatu Owruckiego, Zytomirskiego etc. etc. okolo roku 1715 tego kaplani przez swoich dziekanow posluszenstwo jemu, jako metropolicie kijowskiemu, ultro oddali, y jednosc sic krzewila przez promocyie y fundacye nowe od szlachty collatorow tak, ze w roku 1723dm d[ie] 21 febr[uarii] s[wi£tey] p[amicci] x[iadz] Leon m[e]tr[o]p[o]l[i]ta mnie praesentui^c regestr diecesiey Kijowskiey noviter erigowaney, liczyl cerkwi, alias parochij, n[umero] 273, ut plurimum de nova radice od szlachty fundowanych za przy- icciem jednosci koscielney,” in Arkhiv Sankt-Peterburgskogo instytuta istorii Rossiiskoi akademii nauk (Archive of the Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Science, St Petersburg; hereinafter - Arkhiv SPbll), kol. 52 (Pavel Dobrokhotov), op. 1, no. 207, l. 13.

25 The concept of the “Zhytomyr Union” was first articulated during the Con­ference “Right-Bank Ukraine at the Turn of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries” [Pravoberezhna Ukraina na perelomi XVII-XVIII stolit'], which took place 3-4 June 2016 in Kyiv and Radomyshl on the initiative of the Ukrainian Catholic University and the National University of the “Kyiv- Mohyla Academy.” See “Naukova konferentsiia ‘Pravoberezhna Ukraina na perelomi XVII-XVIII stolit'',” accessed 6 November 2020, https://ucu.edu.ua/ events/naukova-konferentsiya-pravoberezhna-ukrayina-na-perelomi-xvii- xviii-stolit-do-3oo-littya-zhytomyrskoyi-uniyi-i7i5-roku/; “U Radomyshli pidsumuvaly naukovu konferentsiiu,” accessed 6 November 2020, http:// kyiv-christ.ucu.edu.ua/v-radomyshli-pidsumovaly-naukovu-konferentsiyu- pravoberezhna-ukrayina-na-perelomi-xvii-xviii-stolit/.

26 Arkhiv IuZR, 1/ 4: 410-12, no. CLXXXV.

27 Ibid., 423-5, no. CXC-CXCI.

28 The Zhytomyr eparchial synod is also mentioned in one of the cases tried in the metropolitan's court in 1740 concerning the failure of the archpriest Iosyf Rudenko to attend the meeting. See ir nbu, f. 1, spr. 2460, ark. 56-56 zv.

29 We found the actions and constitutions of the synod of the Kyiv archeparchy in 1727 in the final volume of Metropolitan Lev Kyshka's Diary (Shchoden- nyk), see nml, Rkl-113, ark. 15 zv.-i8 zv.

30 nml, Rkl-113, ark. 17 zv.

31 ir nbu, f. 1, spr. 2460, ark. 47-47 zv.

32 For a kind of summary of previous studies of these processes, see Wolfgang Reinhard and Heinz Schilling, ed., Die Katolische Konfessionalisierung. Wis­senschaftliches Symposion der Geselschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus Catholico­rum und des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 1993 (Gütersloh, 1995). An original concept of the confessionalization of early-modern society in the Ukrainian context has been proposed by Serhiy Plokhy, The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine (New York, 2001). The processes of confes- sionalization in the broader context of Central and Eastern Europe are exam­ined in Churches and Confessions in East Central Europe, ed. H. Laszkiewicz (Lublin, 1999); Alfons Brüning, “Confessionalization in the Slavia Orthodoxa (Belorussia, Ukraine, Russia)? - Potential and Limits of a Western Historio­graphical Concept,” in Thomas Bremer, ed., Religion and the Conceptual Boundary in Central and Eastern Europe: Encounters of Faiths (New York, 2008), 66-97; Joachim Bahicke and Arno Strohmeyer, eds, Konfessionalisierung in Ostmitteleuropa: Wirkungen des religiosen Wandels im 16. und 17. Jahrhun­dert im Staat, Gesellschaft und Kultur (Stuttgart, 1999).

Archiwum diecezialne w Siedlcach, sygn. D 153, k. 138-138 v. The settlement of Lysianka, noted in the document is the city (town) of the same name near Zvenyhorodka in the Kyiv palatinate.

nml, Rkl-11, ark. 332.

iR nbu, f. 1, spr. 2460, ark. 45 zv.

This institutional connection of the Uniate clergy of the Kyiv palatinate to the Lviv see is revealed, in particular, by the autographs of the Dymer dean, Fr. Hryhorii Kyselivs'kyi, and the Chudniv dean, Avraam Sochii, in the record book of the Lviv consistory from 1733 (nml, Rkl-83, ark. 104-5).

iR nbu, f. 233, additional inventory, spr. 19, pp. 1-906.

Derzhavnyi arkhiv Zhytomyrs’kol oblasti (State Archive of Zhytomyr Region; hereinafter - DAzho), f. 178, op. 53, spr. 4, ark. 1-447 zv.

Ibid., f. 178, op. 53, spr. 4, ark. 130, 162.

“Na proszenie W[ielmoznych] dobr ukrainskich dziedzicow y cerkwiey fundatorow y kollatorow, oraz poboznych gromadowych ludzi,” in daz ho, f. 178, op. 53, spr. 8, ark. 1-2.

Tsentral’nyi derzhavnyi istorychnyi arkhiv Ukratny v m. Kyievi (Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv; hereinafter - tsdiauk), f. 491, op. 1, spr. 29, ark. 63.

nml, Rkl-113, ark. 111 zv-114.

nml, Rkl-199, ark. 6 zv-7; Rkl-658, ark. 3 zv-4. These materials are pub­lished in Ihor Skochylias, ed., Sobory L'vivs'kot eparkhit XVII-XVIIIstolit’: dokumenty ta materialy (Lviv, 2006), 261.

“Relatio informativa de statu Ecclesiae et Archidiaecesis Metropolitanae Kijoviensis Anno 1746 die 15 Augusti Leopoli compillata ab Athanasio Szepty- cki,” in TsDIAL, f. 684, op. 1, spr. 3160, ark. 1-2 zv.; Congregationes Particu­lares Ecclesiam Catholicam Ucrainae et Bielorussjae epectantes, ed. A.G. Welykyj and E. Kaminskyj (hereinafter - Congregationes Particulares) (Rome, 1957), 2: 283.

Roman Zakharchenko, “Tserkva z Dorohynky: zapiznili vysnovky na tli novykh znakhidok,” Pam'iatky Ukraiiny 2 (2004): 59-69.

For an elaboration of the concept, see Ihor Skochylas, “Slavia Unita - the Cultural and Religious Model of the Archidiocese of Kiev in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (the Discussion on Christian Heritage of the Nations of Eastern Europe),” in East-Central Europe in European History: Themes and Debates (Lublin, 2009), 243-54.

A general overview of the history of this order, and in particular its activity in Ukrainian lands, is provided by the following works: Mykhailo M. Vavryk, Narys rozvytku i stanu Vasyliians’koho chyna XVII-XX st. Typohrafichno- statystychna rozvidka (Rome, 1979); Porfyrii V. Pidruchnyi, “Vasyliians'kyi Chyn vid Beresteis'koho Z'iednannia (1596) do 1743 roku,” in Narys istorit Va- syliians’koho chynu Sviatoho losafata (Rome, 1992), 96-182; Idem, Istorychnyi narys zakonodavstva Vasyliians’koho Chynu sv. losafata (1617-2018) (Rome- Lviv, 2018); Beata Lorens, Bazylianie prowincji koronnej w latach 1743-1780 (Rzeszow, 2014).

48 See the assessment of the religious and cultural involvement of the Basilians in the internal life of the Ruthenian Church in Isydor Patrylo, “Vklad Vasyli- ians'koho chynu v zhyttia z'iednanol Kyivs'kol mytropolii (1617-1839),” in Be­larus, Lithuania, Polonia, Ukraine. International Conference, Rome, 28 April - 6 May 1990 (Lublin-Rome, 1994), 282-9; Ihor Harasym, “Geneza i rola monastycyzmu bazyliahskiego w historii Cerkwi Greckokatolickiej od XVI do XX wieku,” Warszawskie Zeszyty Ukrainoznawcze 4-5 (1997): 225-39.

49 TsDIAL, f. 201, op. 46, spr. 3055, ark. 27. For greater detail, see Ihor Skochylias, “'Slava Isusu Khrystu!' - “Na viky, amin'!” (Do istorii vprovadzhennia khrystiians'koho pryvitannia v Ukralni,” Patriiarkhat 5 (2012): 5-7.

50 See the innovative article on this subject by Iaroslav Isaievych, “Do kharak- terystyky kul'tury doby Baroko: Vasyliians'ki osvitni oseredky,” in Ukra'ina: kul'turna spadshchyna, natsional’na svidomist’, derzhavnist'. luvileinyi zbirnyk naposhanu chlena-korespondenta nan Ukrainy Mykoly Il’nyts’koho, 12 (Lviv, 2004): 105-206.

51 This is dealt with in the author's methodological introductory article: Thomas Kaufmann, “Einleitung: Transkonfessionalität, Interkonfessionalität, binnenkonfessionelle Pluralität - Neue Forschungen zur Konfessional- isierungsthese,” in Kaspar von Greyerz, Manfred Jakubowski-Tiessen, Thomas Kaufmann, Hartmut Lehmann, eds, Interkonferssionalität - Transkonfessional­ität - binnenkonfessionelle Pluralität: Neue Forschungen zur Konfessional- isierungsthese (Gotersloh, 2003), 9-15.

52 The definition of these concepts was given by: Kaufmann, “Einleitung: Tran­skonfessionalität, Interkonfessionalität, binnenkonfessionelle Pluralität,” 14-15.

53 The positive aspects of this “confrontation” are emphasized by Serhii Plokhii, Nalyvaikova vira: Kozatstvo ta relihiia v rann 'omodernii Ukratni (Kyiv, 2005), 134-5.

54 Vasyl' Hryhorovych-Bars'kyi, Mandry po Sviatykh Mistsiakh Skhodu z 1723 po 1747 rik, transl. from Old Ukrainian by Pavlo Bilous, ed. Mykhailo Moskalenko (Kyiv, 2000). Bars'kyi's “wanderings,” including in Italian cities (Bari, Venice, Rome, and Florence), are examined in Alexander Grishin, “Vasyl Hryhorovyc Bars'kyj: An Eighteenth-Century Ukrainian Pilgrim in Italy,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies XVII (1/2) (1993): 7-26.

55 Bars'kyi, Mandry po Sviatykh Mistsiakh Skhodu, 16.

56 Ibid., 16, 18-20.

57 Maksym Iaremenko, “Kyivs'ki studenty 1738 roku: sproba kolektyvnoi fotohrafii,” Zapysky NTSh 256 (2008): 201-4, 208-9, 212-25.

58 Kyievo-Mohylians 'ka akademiia kin. XVII - poch. XIX st. Povsiakdenna istoriia: Zbirnyk dokumentiv, comp. Oksana F. Zadorozhna, Tetiana L. Kuzyk, Zoia I. Khyzhniak, and Maksym V. Iaremenko (Kyiv, 2004), 50-2, 67-8, nos. 23, 31, 33.

59 For example, in 1737, a Uniate priest from Bila Tserkva was accused of con­tacts with the monks of the Kyivan Cave Monastery (ir nbu, f. 1, spr. 2460, ark. 7 zv.)

60 Upon receiving this information, Metropolitan Atanasii Sheptyts'kyi removed Skoruta from the Chudniv parish “for eternity” and sentenced him to “im­prisonment in a cell at the Tryhir'ia Monastery,” in ir nbu, f. 1, spr. 2460, ark. 41 zv.-42 zv.

61 ir nbu, f. 1, spr. 2460, ark. 3 zv-4.

62 “Ktytora S[wic]to Mikolskiego besztanie, wymawiaiac, ze wy uniata sobakic przyieli” in ir nbu, f. i, spr. 2460, ark. 5 zv.

63 ir nbu, f. 1, spr. 2460, ark. 9 zv.-io.

64 Ibid., ark. 14.

65 “Iednosc z Kosciolem Rzymskim nazywal przeklcta [...], ludzi parochian swoich spisanie y za granice Moskiewska aby sic przenosili” in ir nbu, f. 1, spr. 2460, ark. 11 zv.

66 Among Ukrainian researchers, the first to draw attention to the phenomenon of the Great Border was Professor Iaroslav Dashkevych. He saw the Great Border as a fairly wide, moving strip of steppe in the southern part of mod­ern Ukraine, which separated the settled Christian (agricultural) population from the nomadic Muslims. During the fourteenth to eighteenth centuries, not only Ukrainians, Poles, and Russians, on the one hand, and Tatars, Nogais and Turks, on the other, but also smaller communities - the Crimean Tatars, Jews, Karaites, Armenians, Circassians, and so forth - took part in this spiri­tual, economic, cultural, and political exchange. See Iaroslav Dashkevych, “Konfesiini vidnosyny obabich ukrains'koho Velykoho Kordonu (XIV-XVIII st.),” in Ukraina na perekhresti svitiv: Relihiieznavchi ta sotsiokul 'turni studii (Lviv, 2016), 37-42. Articulating the concept of the Ukrainian border, Ia. Dashkevych drew on the theory of the well-known American scholar Frederick Jackson Turner about the frontier as a zone of interaction and con­frontation of multicultural pre-modern communities, where dynamic com­munication takes place, resulting in the borrowing, adapting, and rejecting of certain cultural and social practices. See Fredrick J. Turner, The Frontier in American History (New York, 1935).

67 According to the calculations of the Polish scholar Stanislaw Nabywaniec, whereas there were 479-98 Uniate parishes in 1747-49 on the territory of the Bratslav palatinate, in 1764 there were already 783 of them, in 1773, 902, and on the eve of the region's annexation by Russia (1788), the parish network of the Kyiv archeparchy in this region had grown to an incredible size, number­ing as many as 984 churches! See Stanislaw Nabywaniec, Unicka archidiecezja kijowska v okresie rzqdow arcybiskupa metropolity Felicjana Filipa Wolodkow- icza 1762-1778 (Rzeszow, 1998), 234.

68 nml, Rkl-86, ark. 740-52 zv.; Congregationes Particulares, 2:264.

69 Congregationes Particulares, 2:257, 280-1.

70 Ibid., 2: 270.

71 “Regestr 1748,” in Arkhiv SPbll, kol. 52, op. 2, karton 9, no. 1, l. 247 ob-255 ob.; “Relatio 1746,” in tsdial, f. 684, p. 1, spr. 3160, ark. 1-2 zv.; “Relatio 1752,” in Monumenta Ucrainae historica, ed. Andreas Septyckyj (Rome, 1968), 6: 250; “Summaryusz 1748 r.,” in Arkhiv SPbll, kol. 52, op. 2, karton 9, no. 1, l. 213-13 ob.

72 Congregationes Particulares, 2: 264-65, no. 90.

73 Ibid., 2: 265-7.

74 Arkhiv SPbll, kol. 52, op. 2, karton 9, no. 1, l. 425; nml, Rkl-199, ark. 18 zv-19; Rkl-658, ark. 10 zv.-ii.

75 DAzho, f. 178, op. 53, spr. 2, ark. 111 zv.; spr. 37, ark. 148.

76 Arkhiv SPbll, kol. 52, op. 2, karton 9, no. 1, l. 71-71 ob.

77 nml, Rkl-75, ark. 33 zv.-34; tsdial, f. 1040, p. 1, spr. 3, ark. 93-96.

78 Congregationes Particulares, 2: 255, 261.

79 Tymoshenko, Z istorii Uniats 'koi Tserkvy na Ky'ivshchyni, 21-5.

80 Leonid Tymoshenko, “Misto Radomyshlv istorii Ukrains'koi Tserkvy,” in Na sluzhbi Klio: Zbirnyk naukovykh prats na poshanu L. Vynara (Kyiv-New York-Toronto-Paris-Lviv, 2000), 484-92; Nabywaniec, Unicka archidiecezja kijowska, 40-1.

81 Arkhiv SPbll, kol. 52, op. 2, karton 9, no. 1, l. 247 ob-252 ob.; ir nbu, f. 1, spr. 2459, ark. 288 zv.-35i zv.; Tsentral’nyi derzhavnyi istorychnyi arkhiv Ukrainy v m. Kyievi (Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv; hereinafter - tsdiauk), f. 1040, op. 1, spr. 2, ark. 487-564.

82 ir nbu, f. 1, spr. 2459, ark. 298 zv-301 zv., 312, 320, 322; tsdiauk, f. 1040, op. 1, spr. 2, ark. 503.

83 ir nbu, f. 1, spr. 2459, ark. 312, 315 zv-317 zv.; tsdiauk, f. 1040, op. 1, spr. 2, ark. 11 ZV.-12 zv. 77 zv/-8o, 83, 84.

84 Archiwum Panstwowe w Lublinie, Cheimski Konsystorz Greckokatolicki (State Archive in Lubline, Greek Catholic Consistory in Chelm; hereinafter - apl, chKGK), sygn. 30, s. 28-31, 461-63. See also Congregationes Particulares, 2: 258.

85 Congregationes Particulares, 2: 288-9.

86 Ibid., 2: 286.

87 ir nbu, f. 1, spr. 2462, ark. 1-549 zv.; spr. 2463, ark. 1-394; ark. 1-548; tsdiauk, f. 1040, op. 1, spr. 2, ark. 224-28, 517-18 zv.

88 DAzho, f. 178, op. 53, spr. 2, ark. 86, spr. 37, ark. 73.

89 tsdiauk, f. 1040, op. 1, spr. 3, ark. 1-236.

90 tsdiauk, f. 1040, op. 1, spr. 3, ark. 243 zv-244, 892 zv.

91 Ibid., f. 201, op. 4, spr. 82.

92 Ibid., f. 1040, op. 1, spr. 2, ark. 11 zv.-i2 zv.

93 nml, Rkl-86, ark. 698 ff.

94 “Z dawnych czasow do diecezyi Bradawskiey ritus Graeci Romano Uniti przylaczona, w dobrach moich starostwie y miasteczku Szawulisie w woie- wodztwie y powiecie Kijowskim lezacym,” in nml, Rkl-86, ark. 728-728 zv.

95 Congregationes Particulares, 2:270, 280-1, 285-7.

96 tsdiauk, f. 201, op. 46, spr. 305, ark. 1.

97 Congregationes Particulares, 2: 257-58.

98 tsdiauk, f. 1040, op. 1, spr. 2, ark. 561 zv-562.

99 Congregationes Particulares, 2:259.

100 Ibid., 2: 273.

101 “De iurisdictione Metropolitae Kioviensis in Decanatu Braclaviensi, praetensa ab Episcopo Leopoliensi. Roma, 7.V.1753,” in Congregationes Partic­ulares, 2:253-95, no. 90.

102 Congregationes Particulares, 2:254.

103 Litterae S. C. de Propaganda Fide Ecclesiam Catholicam Ucrainae et Bielarusjae spectantes, ed. A.G. Welykyj (Rome, 1957), 4:270, no. 1877.