Ukraine on Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Maps: From the “Wild Field” to the “Country of the Cossacks”

KYRYLO HALUSHKO

Until the middle of the seventeenth century, the vision that European cartogra­phers had of the Ukrainian territories was very vague and amorphous. Their re­spect for the ancient classics had for centuries designated these lands as “Sarmatia” or “European Sarmatia,” still populated by ancient tribes who had long since left the historical arena, or by mysterious mythical creatures.

New studies of ancient geography (in particular, the printing of Ptolemy's atlas, the maps for which were created during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries) and the desire to supplement it regarding places that were most certainly un­known to the ancient classics - in particular, northern and eastern Europe - in­tensified the efforts of the geographers and cartographers of the time to portray the contemporary realities on the map.

One of the obvious components of this painstaking work was forming the image of “new” countries and regions, such as England, Poland, Bohemia, Austria, Hungary, Prussia, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. While earlier the idea of Eu­rope “beyond Rome” was limited to Germania and Sarmatia, knowledge of which dated back to ancient authors, now the nomenclature of countries and peoples was expanding.

We will not dwell on the initial stage of mapping Ukrainian lands, because it is expounded in such a fundamental publication as Ukraine on Ancient Maps (part one),¹ and the general description of this process - in the generalizing work of Rostyslav Sossa.² We did this retrospectively in our study Ukraine on the Map of Europe.³ In the context of the present article, we are primarily interested in the period when the name “Ukraine” first appeared on maps, which coincided chronologically with the emergence of the Cossack polity, and also the future fate of this toponym.

As Europe's geographical interests drew nearer to these territories through the “prism” of Dutch, German, and Polish cartography, they sooner or later had to run up against Europe's border with the Islamic world in the Black Sea and Dnipro regions (Prychornomor’ia and Podniprov’ia), which was of great interest to the West. The expansion of the Ottomans in Europe, which reached its apogee in the seventeenth century, posed the main threat to the Christian world at its very heart, despite all the latter's achievements in the New World. Therefore, the growing ac­tivity of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, their sea and land campaigns against the Turks during the hetmancy of Petro Sahaidachnyi (especially the Battle of Khotyn in 1621), the fierce Kamianets and Chyhyryn campaigns in the 1670s, and the brilliant victory at Vienna in 1683 would make the Ukrainian Wild Field (Dyke Pole) one of the permanent strategic frontiers of Europe. Information about these chival­rous and romantic events would become very widespread. The Wild Field itself would introduce into wide circulation its second name - “Ukraine” - and during the seventeenth century its meaning would change from “borderland” (okraina, kordon) to the name of the country. Describing Western information about Ukrainians, the Italian scholar Arturo Cronia wrote: “[Western] literature about wars, mostly anonymous, [is] full of enthusiasm for the indefatigable people in the struggle, which was the discovery of the century.”⁴

We will begin our account about the appearance of “Ukraine” (Ukraina) on the map by rejecting a certain analogy - okraina (borderland).

The Newest Map of Russia (Novissima Russia Tabula) by the Dutch merchant and cartographer Isaac Massa (1586-1643), published in 1633,⁵ was engraved by a master from a famous printmaking family, Willem Hondius, who later engraved Guillaume Le Vasseur de Beauplan's General Map of Ukraine (Delineatio generalis Camporum Desertorum vulgo Ukraina: cum adjacentibusprovinciis) and the por­trait of Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi. Massa's map contains the name Okraina, which depicts the vague territories of the Wild Field on the southern borders of the Muscovite state and is located quite far to the east of the Ukrainian Siversk region (Sivershchyna). Since Massa based his map on Moscow sources, he managed to reflect in it the origins of the later popular ideological stereotype that connected Ukraina with okraina Rossii (Russia's borderland). Although we actually do see the Muscovite okraina (borderland) on Massa's map, it has nothing to do with the Ukraina that is farther away. The latter is located somewhere in the lands of the upper Oka, Don, or the Riazan Region.

Clearly, the etymology of the names Ukraina and okraina is identical, indicating the borderland. However, in our context, the career of Ukraina proved to be im­pressive in comparison with the Russian okraina, which, as the steppe was colo­nized, did not acquire independent significance and a clear localization. The unwitting promoters of “Ukraine” were, of course, the Zaporozhian Cossacks, who created in this “borderland” (Ukraina) a very distinctive military community, the historical mission and activity of which expanded Ukraine from an actual borderland on the territory of medieval Rus' into the entirety of the central Dnipro region (Naddniprianshchyna). From the time of Khmel'nyts'kyi, Rus' and Ukraine became synonymous. The name Rus', perfectly historical, “time- honored,” and traditional, was used in political rhetoric; Ukraine, hard-set because of the Cossacks' serious confrontation with the Polish-Lithuanian Common­wealth, Moscow, and the Ottoman Empire, became an “emotional Fatherland” during the Ruin.

Russian researcher Tatiana Tairova-Iakovleva, analyzing the documents of the embassy to Moscow from Hetman Ivan Samoilovych in 1685, quotes from the “historical note” supplied by the Cossack chancellery: “Description of the palati­nates of Kyiv, Pereiaslav, and Chernihiv, of which the entire Zaporozhian Host consists... All of Ukraine and the Zaporozhian Host consists of those three palati­nates...”⁶ The instruction to the ambassadors also reminded them of the lost land to the west of the Dnipro:

when this Little Russia [Rosiia] with the Zaporozhian Host and the com­mon people committed themselves to the gracious protection of this most gracious monarch [the Muscovite tsar - K. H.], then this Little Russian country was found in its perfect completeness, [extending] not only from the Polish land along the Sluch River to the city of Kamianets, and its width stretched from the Wallachian land to the Dnister River, but also had its wide borders from Lithuania inland. [...] And now with great and unquenchable remorse we, the hetman with the Zaporozhian Host, and with all the Little Russian people, because of our sins, must undergo the diminishment, allowed by God, of our Little Russian country by internal wars and oaths taken by criminals or by hostile invasions and various dis­turbances, since the aforesaid side of the Dnipro remains excluded.⁷

This description shows quite clearly where “our Rus' Ukraine” was located.

However, it is worth mentioning another localization of Rus', characteristic of the view “from the West,” especially of those who traveled or lived in the lands of central Europe. Since the conquest of the domains of the former “king of Rus'” Danylo Romanovych of Galicia (1253) by Casimir III the Great (1349), and espe­cially since the creation of the Ruthenian palatinate centered in Lviv (1434), Rus’ had a well-defined administrative localization in Subcarpathia (Prykarpattia), while the rest of former Rus' in its broadest meaning (Belarusian, Novgorodian, and Muscovite territories) was a conglomerate of various states and principalities with different names, and none of them were called Rus' - except for the third, often forgotten part of the name of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Samogitia, and Rus'.

If we refer to Bernard Wapowski's New Map of Poland and Hungary (Polonia et Vngaria XVNova Tabvla) of 1540⁸ (on which there are no political or admin­istrative borders), we will find that on it Russia meanders from just plain Russia in Galicia to Russia Alba [White] near Muscovy. However, starting from various editions of the works of Waclaw Grodziecki,⁹ where the administrative borders of palatinates were already being delineated, it logically became a coordinate name with such other regional names as Volhynia and Podilia. Although from a histor­ical perspective, or of the countries named Rus’, all these Ukrainian palatinates were together, and the Kyiv region, and later, the Chernihiv region, even more so. But overall, if the name Rus’ is taken in its broadest sense, Polish, Upper German, and southern European cartographers usually placed it in Subcarpathia, while the north German, Dutch, and English mapmakers located it on the territories of the northern Novgorod region, which was closer to them, next to the corre­sponding Novgardia.

After 1569, when the Ukrainian lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania came under the rule of the Kingdom of Poland, the name of the Polish Rus' was some­times replaced by the synonymous name Ukraina, as was the case in one of the universals issued by King Stefan Batory (1580), quoted by Petro Sas: “to the starostas, vice-starostas, leaseholders, princelings, lords, and people of knightly status living in Rus', Kyiv, Volhynia, Pidliashshia (Podlachia), and Bratslav Ukraine.”¹⁰ Accordingly, here Ukraine includes the Rus', Volhynia, Kyiv, Pid­liashshia, and Bratslav palatinates. This is a fairly early and significantly wide use of the name Ukraina, and therefore this quotation anticipates its future career.

Given the presence of Subcarpathian Rus' in central Europe, it becomes clear why from this southern perspective, the attempts of the Muscovite state to call itself Rus’, and the persistent use in the West of the word Muscovite, were not accepted for a very long time.

Russia on the maps of the time in its “broad interpretation” did not have well- defined (obvious to subsequent researchers) criteria for its expanses: it was not an integral state or a single region with this name. Perhaps this was how the entire Orthodox space of eastern Europe and Moscow’s acquisitions beyond the Urals were seen. It is also possible that this is how the territory of the former ancient Rus' with the domains of its motley heirs was represented because these maps spatially encompassed Lithuanian, Polish, Novgorodian, and Muscovite lands, where this name was used. Consequently, we cannot draw any evidential conclu­sions or generalizations in this respect.

Early Western use of the adjective “Rus'/Russian” in connection with Moscow is found in the work of Giles Fletcher, Of the Russe Common Wealth (1591). As Dmytro Nalyvaiko notes, “Fletcher had been an English ambassador to Moscow, so he knew the official name of the state, which he put on the title page of his book, but, symptomatically, he included a clarification in the title that was im­portant for the orientation of his readers, who knew this country and its ruler by another name (‘Or, Maner of gouernement of the Russe emperour, commonly called the Emperour of Moskouia’)”¹² Finally, western Europeans acknowledged the fact that the Rus' and Muscovite languages were different. Thus, the Austrian ambas­sador to Moscow, John Henckel von Donnersmarck, pointed out that the language of Ukraine was rus’ka (Ruthenian), and the Polish diplomat Hans Grytyna “was very familiar with the Ruthenian and Muscovite languages.”¹³

In modern terms, Rus' was a “brand name,” which nobody wanted to relin­quish. The aforementioned Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi, when he later defined his political claims, called himself “sole ruler and autocrat of Rus',” asserting his rights to, respectively, “Lviv, Kholm, and Halych.” In other words, for the great hetman, the power of Rus' derived from Kyiv and encompassed both Dnipro Rus' and Subcarpathian Rus' - the de facto ethnic habitat of the Ruthenians- Ukrainians. However, it proved impossible at the time to unite the two parts of the future Ukraine, and this would be one of the reasons that Subcarpathia re­tained the name Rus' for a long time yet, while the Dnipro region would con­tinue, with varying degrees of success, to be “Cossackized” (pokozachuvatysia) and, accordingly, “Ukrainized.”

Now let us turn to two accounts by two Frenchmen about the Cossacks and their country Ukraine. Pierre Chevalier in his A Discourse of the Original, Coun­trey, Manners, Government and Religion of the Cossacks with Another of the Pre- copian Tartars: and the History of the Wars of the Cossacks Against Poland (Histoire de la guerre des Cosaques contre la Pologne: avec un discours de leur origine, pais, moeurs, gouvernement et religion. Et un autre des Tartares Precopites; 1663) writes that “the Cossacks... were volunteers from the frontiers of Russia, Volhynia, Podolia, and other provinces of Poland.”¹⁴ He connects their appearance with the activities of Stefan Batory: “King Stefan Bathory, to whom Poland is beholden for many good rules, considered the service which he might draw from these Rovers, towards the defence of the frontiers of Russia and Podolia, which lay al­ways exposed to the incursions of the Tartars, formed a Militia out of them and gave them the Town of Trethymirow upon the Boristhenes for a Garrison.”¹⁵ What is significant for us is Chevalier's remark that “from all this discourse we may at present infer, that the Cossacks are rather a Militia than a Nation, as most have thought.”¹⁶ The Italian Galeazzo Gualdo Priorato wrote contemporaneously that “neither their origin nor their way of life differ in any way from the Rus'.”¹⁷

Regarding Ukraine, Chevalier provides the following geographical informa­tion: “The Countrey inhabited by the Cossacks is called Ukrain, which signifies the Frontier, it extends itself beyond Volhinia and Podolia, and maketh a part of the palatinates of Kiovia and Braclaw... Ukraine is very fruitful, and so is Russia and Podolia.”¹⁸ He continues:

The principal Rivers are the Nieper or Boristhenes, the Bog, the Niester or Tyros, which bounds Walachia, the Dezna, the Ros, the Horin, the Slucz, the Ster, and many other lesser Rivers and Streams, by the number of which we may judge of the goodness of the Soil.

The most considerable Towns and Fortresses possessed by the Cossacks are Kiovia, where there is a palatinate and a metropolitan Greek Church, Bialacerkiew, Korsun, Constantinow, Bar, Czarkassi, Czehrin, Kudak, Jampol, at a passage over the Niester, Baraclaw upon the Bog, a palatinacy, Winnicza, Human, Czernihow, Pereaslaw, Lubnie, Pawoloiz, Chwastow.¹⁹

When he speaks of Rus', he means Subcarpathia and the Rus'/Ruthenian palati­nate. Thus, for Chevalier, Ukraine is the Dnipro region, which the Zaporozhian Host captured under the mace of Khmel'nyts'kyi. For another Frenchman, Gas­pard de Tende de Hauteville, in his general description of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Ukraine is also only the Dnipro region, but it is listed among the “Rus' provinces,” along with Podilia, Volhynia, and Galicia.²⁰

Ukraine's “narrow localization” by the French would remain approximately the same even thirty years later, after the period of the Ruin, in particular, in the Memoires du Chevalier de Beaujeu, written on the basis of the observations of King John Sobieski's agent, Francois-Paulin Dalairac (published in 1698). Accord­ing to them, until recently Ukraine “in terms of size of territory and population could have been called a great kingdom. Today this country is completely de­stroyed; war, like gangrene, little by little eats up everything that it meets in its path, turning the best corner of Europe into deserted fields, where the grass hides the abandoned cities.”²¹ But this sad quote, as we will see below, did not mark the end of the career of the “people - the discovery of the century.”

However, let us return to the “visualization of Ukraine” by another son of France, an older contemporary of Chevalier and one of his sources of informa­tion. Undoubtedly, the milestone author for the cartography and historiography of Ukraine is Guillaume Le Vasseur de Beauplan (1600-73). This figure is well known to generations of historians who have referred to his Description of Ukraine, several provinces of the Kingdom of Poland that stretch from the borders of Muscovy to the borders of Transylvania, together with their customs, way of life, and warfare (Description d’Ukranie, qui sontplusieurs provinces du Royaume de Pologne, contenues depuis les confins de la Moscovie, jusques aux limites de la Tran- silvanie; ensemble leurs mxurs, facons de vivre et de faire la guerre; 1651). We are not going to dwell on the historiography of “Beauplania,” since this has already been done in other contexts by Ukrainian scholars.²² This French artilleryman, military engineer, and cartographer, who saw a lot of the world (he took part in an expedition to the Indian Ocean), served in the Polish army in 1630-47. In the 1630s, he built fortifications in Bar, Brody, Kremenchuk, Novhorod-Siverskyi, and Kodak, conducted topographic surveying, and drew maps of Ukrainian ter­ritories. Geographers most respect his achievements in hydrography: for exam­ple, it is now believed that it was he who correctly “bent” the Dnipro on the map, which earlier had usually been depicted with a straight channel or with only one bend.

In the English edition, Beauplan's map, which had previously faced south, ac­quired a more familiar northern orientation. British interest in Beauplan con­tinued as evidenced by the fact that the translation of the Description of Ukraine was published in 1704, 1752, and 1764.²³ Thanks to Beauplan, the contemporary encyclopedic collection The New Theater of the World (Le nouveau Theatre du monde, ou l’abrege des etats et empires de l’Univers; Paris, 1666) by Adam Boussin- gault noted: “Ukraine lies between Muscovy and Transylvania. Kyiv, the main city of this vast country, belongs among the ancient cities of Europe.”²⁴

In Beauplan's description, “Ukraine” is also the collective name of the Dnipro provinces of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where a bloody Cossack war raged at the very time of the printing of his work. For Beauplan, the right bank of the Dnipro is “Ruthenian” or “Ukrainian,” and the left bank is “Muscovite” (not in the sense of belonging, but of proximity); he uses “Ruthenians” or “Cos­sacks” as synonyms.

Essentially Beauplan was the first to position “Ukraine” (at least, as a name of a separate map of the country) in the geography of Europe, where it occupied its place until the end of the eighteenth century, and after that appeared sporadically until 1917, when a new stage of its “cartographic biography” began. At the end of the eighteenth century, the Ukrainian Hetmanate, the Zaporozhian Cossacks themselves, Poland, Lithuania, and the Crimean Tatars had all lost their relevance as a result of conquest, partition, and dismemberment by empires - Russian and Austrian. In Beauplan's time, however, all these processes were only beginning.

Characteristic and important for us was the meaningful change, during the first years of existence of the Beauplan map, in the explanation of the toponym Ukraine. At first, it appeared as an alternate name for the Wild Field, but after a few years it began to be quite consistent with the title of Beauplan's map - that is, Map of Ukraine with Many of Its Provinces, inasmuch as the formation of the state of Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi and his followers amidst revolutionary struggle was taking place at the same time. As a result, Ukraine was being transformed from a kind of border region of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth into a politonym, whose boundaries were determined by the actual borders of the Cos­sack state. According to Beauplan, Ukraine, obviously, included “more credibly” the more westerly, closer to Poland, bank of the Dnipro (see, in particular, his New Map of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Nova totius Regni PolonieMagniq Ducatus Lithuania cum fuisPalatinatibus Ac confiniis Exacta Delineatio per G. le Vasseur de Beauplan s.r.mtis architectum militarem et capita- neum, anno 1651; 1652),²⁵ that is, the Wild Field and the Bratslav and Kyiv palati­nates (the latter encompassed both banks of the Dnipro), but it is not clear if it also included the Chernihiv region (according to Beauplan's version), which at that time had been part of the Polish domains for only thirty years.²⁶ However, it was included in Beauplan's initial placement of Ukraine “between Transylvania and Muscovy.”

In terms of its general “coverage of the territory,” Ukraine on Beauplan's map is literally the eastern part of the domain of the Kingdom of Poland within the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth lying east of RussiaePars (Gali­cia), south of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, north of the Turkish-Tatar lands, and up to the Muscovite border. Incidentally, approximately the same borders of Khmel'nyts'kyi's state also figure in the Treaty of Zboriv of 1649, or as the bound­aries of the Grand Duchy of Rus' in Ivan Vyhovs'kyi's Treaty of Hadiach of 1658. The dividing line between the Cossack domains and the western Ukrainian lands that had not been acquired by the Cossacks was the Horyn River. As to the western boundaries of the spatial coverage (position) of the “map of Ukraine” (we cannot be certain that these were the boundaries of Ukraine itself, as imagined by Beau­plan, because his map was “narrower”), on the first map (General Plan), these boundaries reached Lviv and the Western Buh (Boh) River, but on the more de­tailed, “special” map - as far as Przemysl (Peremyshl) and the Vistula. On the first map there is Rus’, the second has Black Rus’ (Russie Noire).

Beauplan's maps, in particular, the outlines of the Ukrainian palatinates or maps of the Dnipro, were reprinted until the 1720s. His works were also actively used and reprinted by his fellow Frenchmen - Nicolas Sanson (1665, 1678 with Giovanni Rossi) and Pierre Duval (1667), Guillaume Sanson and Alexis-Hubert Jaillot (1672); the Dutchmen Joan Blaeu (1667, 1670), Johannes Janssonius (1686), and Frederick de Wit (1690); the German Jacob Sandrart (1687); and others. On the map of Nicolas Sanson and Giovanni Rossi of 1678,²⁷ the name Ukraine or the Land of the Cossacks (Vcraina o Paese de Cosacchi) passes through Upper Volhynia (the authentic Volhynia) and Lower Volhynia (the Dnipro region). The latter covers both sides of the Dnipro River. The location of the inscription allows one to arbitrarily assign it also to Upper and Lower Podilia (this assumption is possible based on a later map of Hungary, where the inscription “Ukraine” takes in Podilia).²⁸ There is no dividing line along the Dnipro between Poland and Muscovy.

An interesting change in Beauplan's map was made by the Dutchman Johannes Janssonius in 1686. His General Map of Ukraine (Typus Generalis vkrain^ sive palatinatum podoli^, kioviensis et Braczlaviensis terras nova delineatione exhibens)²⁹ (with the old Beauplan cartouche) contains many explanatory cap­tions in Latin, in particular, at the places of Cossack battles - at Loyew and Li- ubech: “In this place, on 31 July 1649, near the town of Loyew, Lithuanian hetman Janusz RadziwiU defeated 36,000 rebellious Cossacks, and their [leader] Mykhailo Krychevs'kyi died”; Berestechko: “Near Berestechko [...] Polish king John Casimir [John II Casimir Vasa] beat and forced to flee 30,000 Tatars and rebellious Cos­sacks in the year 1651, on the 30th day of June.”

The division of Ukraine between Poland and Muscovy along the Dnipro River probably occurs for the first time in the work of Dutch cartographer Frederick de Wit (1690),³⁰ who in all else relied on Nicolas Sanson and Beauplan as his to­pographical basis. However, the name vkrania covers the Left-Bank Hetmanate and Right-Bank Ukraine (Pravoberezhzhia), which together are identified tradi­tionally as “Lower Volhynia.” This division was slow to become established. It next appeared on the schematic map of the Frenchman Nicolas de Fer (published in 1731) but disappeared from his map published in 1737.³¹ It was marked on the highly schematic map of the roads of Poland by Johann Schreiber (Leipzig, 1740),³² and in the same year, by the Dutchman Isaac Tirion.³³ On the latter's map, Ukraine is located only on the Left Bank. The map of another Dutchman, Tobias Maier (1750), shows the opposite - Ukraine is placed on the Right Bank. In Tirion's work Ukraine is on the map of Muscovy while in Maier's it is on the map of Poland.³⁴ Perhaps this explains the localization of the toponym: each country contained its own part of Ukraine, and thus their “own” part was identified accordingly. Gabriel Bodenehr of Augsburg, on the other hand, showed an undivided territory under the general name: Volhynia. Ukraine or the Cossack Lands (1740).³⁵

Thus, on the 1710 map of the Kingdom of Poland by the Dutchmen Gerard and Leonard Valk, Red Rus' (Russia Rubra) is set off in a separate yellow color and, essentially, encompasses the entire ethnic Ukraine of that time.³⁶ The central part of the Right- and Left-Bank regions is called Ukraine (Ukrania). This map is an interesting precedent of the whole of ethnic Ukraine being shown in a single outline and color. Subsequently, the Valks were imitated in this by the Nuremburg native Johann Homann (more about him later) and Matthäus Seutter of Augsburg (1731). The division between Red Rus' and Ukraine remained in various editions of the maps by the French royal cartographers Gilles and Didier Robert de Vau- gondy from the 1750s and other subsequent maps. We will not dwell on them in detail, because the only significant difference between them consists in whether Ukraine is shown on them or not. Mainly it is shown encompassing either both banks of the Dnipro, or only the Right Bank (on part of the maps of Poland). Along with the relatively stable localizations of Ukraine, at times Red Rus' again appears as the identification of the entire ethnic Ukrainian space from Sub- carpathia to sub-Russian Left-Bank Ukraine. In the 1772 Paris edition of his map, the Italian Giovanni Rizzi Zannoni showed Polish Ukraine and Muscovite Ukraine. The inscriptions on the map are in Polish, since this map was the cul­minating elaboration of the work of Polish cartographers sponsored by their pa­tron Jozef Jablonowski in 1740-62.

We should note that in fact there was no rush to color Ukraine on maps in two parts in different state colors after the Treaty of Andrusovo in 1667 and the Eternal Peace of 1686. We suspect this was not mainly due to the professional “inertia” of cartographers, but to the constant changes in the political and military levers, which did not allow establishing any kind of “final state” of the territory. This was especially the case as such a radical change of borders required advertising and promotion.

Whereas Beauplan was in military service in Poland and reflected the position (spatial coverage) of the southern part of the eastern borderlands of the Polish Commonwealth on his map, painting Left-Bank Ukraine in the colors of Muscovy on Western European maps required a “Muscovite edition” of maps of Eastern Europe that would reach the leading cartographic publishers, workshops, and editorial offices of the East: Paris, Amsterdam, London, Nuremberg, and Gdansk.

“Cartographic propaganda” was an important matter at a time when few saw the “big world” but wanted to have an idea of it. This was even more true of people in power who were engaged on a practical level in “geopolitics.” As the historian Larry Wolff writes, “Maps provided a basic geographical framework for organiz­ing other forms of knowledge, from natural history to national history... and made geography essential to accounts of contemporary international politics.”³⁷

It was only since the reign of Peter I that such a politically important objective of “cartographic propaganda” was purposefully pursued in Russia. His large-scale projects of the geographical study of Russia called for the creation of an Atlas of Russia through the efforts of the St Petersburg Imperial Academy of Sciences, which could serve as a reliable source of information for the West. Before this, Muscovy appeared on maps as a mysterious, cold country at the very edge of Eu­rope and in Asia; its affiliation with the European or Asian world was confused (the same dilemma existed on Italian and Spanish sea maps - portolans of the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries).³⁸ The Christian faith of the Muscovites osten­sibly included them in Europe, but since the ancient era, Russia was divided in half by the famous border of Europe along the Don (Tanais) River, at least since the conquest of Siberia. In the middle of the sixteenth century, the diplomat and traveler Sigismund Herberstein believed that if one drew a line from the Tanais, Muscovy would be in Asia. This brought to mind a similar situation with “Euro­pean Sarmatia” and “Asian Sarmatia,” inasmuch as the border of Europe was for Europeans a self-sufficiently significant and symbolic manner of determining what we today would call “civilizational affiliation.”

A similar concept is present on the map created in Lithuania by Ivan Liatskii, a fugitive from Moscow, voivode and okol'nichii, and the artist Antonii Vid (1542): “Muscovy, which is also White Russia, is not part of European Sarmatia. But it belongs to greater Asia or Scythia...”³⁹ In Joan Blaeu's Amsterdam atlas of 1665, the Muscovites are depicted on the map of Asia among the miniatures of Asian peoples.⁴⁰

This age-old border with Asia became the focus of Peter I during the Azov campaigns of 1695-96. The success of these wars had to be advertised by appro­priate “declarative” maps. A draft of one was made in 1699 by two foreigners serving in Muscovy, Major General Mengden and Field Marshal Jacob Bruce, and it was engraved by the Dutchman Jan Tessing. The map was published in Russian and Latin and contained a flattering cartouche and a portrait of the Muscovite monarch. Interestingly, this was perhaps the first time that Ukraine was labelled “Little Russia” (Pars Russiae Minoris) within the boundaries of the Dnipro region and without the then Polish-Russian division along the Dnipro, as pointed out by such an authoritative author as Rostyslav Sossa.⁴¹ However, there is now every reason to believe that the map of Mengden and Bruce (1699) was not an original work but a Latin-language copy of the 1697 Map of the King­dom of Poland, containing the state of Poland and Lithuania divided into provinces (Le Royaume de Pologne comprenant les etats de Polognes et de Lithuanie, divisez en provinces) by the French cartographer Jean-Baptiste Nolin. This becomes im­mediately evident from the inscription of Petite Russie extending from eastern Volhynia to almost Smolensk, since such coverage by this toponym does not ap­pear in other known cartographic sources - only in Jean-Baptiste Nolin and Mengden-Bruce. Accordingly, therefore, we should now regard the first mention of the toponym “Little Russia” on a map as appearing at least in 1697 and not 1699, and that doubtless this was not a Russian product. Consequently, there is a need for a separate study of the works of this French cartographer, who is not among the very well-known mapmakers.

At the same time, however, the initial dependence of Petrine Russian cartog­raphy on Western European (primarily French) examples affected the fact that on the cusp of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries for the first time (but very briefly - except for once), the name “Ukraine Cossack Country” (Ukraina Kozatskaia Strana) (in exactly this form) appeared on the Russian map of Eu­rope.⁴² Co-existing on this map are the “Muscovite or Russian Tsardom” (Tsarstvo Moskovskoe ili Rossiiskoe) and “Black Russia” (Rossiia Chernaia) in Galicia and the Kholm (Chelm) region. Thereafter, “Ukraine” would not appear again, having been replaced by “Little Russia” (Mala Rus’), which was more acceptable to the state that had recently begun calling itself Russia (Rossiia). The existence of the name “Ukraine” here was connected with the French original of this map - the work of Guillaume Sanson (1670s).

Of course, the term “Little Rus'” (Mala Rus’), which was transformed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries into “Little Russia” (Malorosiia), was known to us for a long time - since the fourteenth century (an episode related to the for­mation of the Halych metropolitanate while the metropolitan of Kyiv had his residence in Vladimir and later in Moscow). But “Little Russia” acquired a certain geographical and political-legal meaning only in the context of relations between the Ukrainian hetmans and Church hierarchs with Moscow institutions after 1654. This name was used as a synonym for the lands of the Zaporozhian Host (Hetmanate) and the Ukraine-Dnipro region in official correspondence but was not in common use. This was not by accident, since the word Rosiia was a solemn Hellenized (Greek) synonym for Rus’ (or the wide expanse of Rus' Orthodoxy) and, accordingly, was widespread in religious scholarly circles. Until the second half of the seventeenth century, it did not apply specifically to the lands of the Muscovite state (on the use of names for Ukrainian territories, it is worth referring to Volodymyr Kravchenko’s study⁴³).

However, later, in the i66os-7os, the terms “Little Russian people,” “Little Rus­sian cities,” and “Little Russian hetmans” began to be used in sources. This name, of course, did not have any disparaging meaning (as imagined by the Ukrainian national movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) at the time. It was obviously convenient for the Moscow administration, because the more fa­miliar to them name of the Ukrainian Cossacks, cherkasy, turned out to be somewhat narrow in meaning. A cartographic example of terminology is also the title Drawings for Ukrainian and Cherkasian Cities from Moscow to Crimea (Chertezha ukrainskim i cherkaskim gorodam ot Moskvy do Kryma) (1670­71?), which served as a road map (from city to city, with distances) for those who traveled the most popular military route of the Muscovite army during the Ukrainian Ruin.

The name of the relevant administrative institution in charge of relations with the Hetmanate (the Little Russian Department (prikaz), which functioned in 1662-1722 before Peter I created the First Little Russian Collegium) also de­termined terminology. It is also clear that the toponym “Little Russia” (Mal- orosiia) appeared in European geography and cartography only sporadically, and only through remakes of Russian maps of the eighteenth and early nine­teenth centuries; it would later become established there in translation (namely, “Little Russia” - Petite Russie, Kleine Russland, Little Russia), and not as a trans­literation from Russian (Malorossiia). Moreover, this would happen in the nine­teenth century, much later than the term “Russia” (Rosiia) would finally replace “Muscovy” (Moskoviia) (in the middle of the eighteenth century).

Therefore, the cartographic historian faces a significant problem: how to trans­late the same word in French, German, and English, which denotes both Rus' and Russia-Muscovy (in the sense of the Russian state/empire). Since this leaves too much room for arbitrary interpretations, or the passing off of an author's own hypothesis as reality, our approach in this article (as the reader can see) is to try to provide only the transliteration of the name (Russiia) up to the seventeenth­eighteenth century, and thereafter be guided by the nomenclatural context of the map: if the map contains Muscovy (Moskoviia) in any of its forms in parallel with Russiia, we translate Russiia as Rus’, without necessarily connecting it to the Mus­covite state. However, if Moskoviia disappears and only Russiia remains with a connection to the Russian Empire, then we translate it as Russia and, accordingly, we have Malorosiia (Little Russia) rather than Mala Rus’ (Little Rus’).

Let us return to the Petrine era. Peter's military-political and cartographic am­bitions gradually grew, and he invited Joseph-Nicolas Delisle, brother of the chief geographer of the French Royal Academy of Sciences, Guillaume Delisle, to create the desired atlas of Russia. Work on the atlas was painstaking and lasted for a long time (it appeared twenty years after the death of Peter - in 1745), but competing Western editions cast doubt on its accuracy. Although this was rather dictated by envy since this atlas (which may in fact have not been very accurate) was a serious twenty-year state project.

At that time, the leading events in European life were two wars: in the West - for the Spanish succession (1701-14) and in the East - the Great Northern War (1700-21). The latter had a tragic significance for Ukrainian history, dashing Ivan Mazepa's attempt to restore the independence of the Hetmanate. Clearly, his action was a forced risky step, but it was one of those cases of a historical choice, the idea of which alone lives on much longer than the participants of the event. The war was, as we know, “northern,” for the domination of the Baltic, but capri­cious military luck led the troops of the young, ambitious Swedish king Charles XII to the Ukrainian lands. Hetman Mazepa was faced with a difficult and un­expected choice - to remain loyal to the equally ambitious Peter I, who liked the hetman personally, but was the obvious destroyer of Ukrainian liberties, or ven­ture over with his adherents to the Swedish camp, looking for a possible foreign policy alternative.

For European cartographers, the Northern War was a successful business pro­ject. It was a serious continental conflict that lasted for two decades, which could be conveniently followed by having the theater of operations before one's eyes. As the Swedish geographer Philip Johan von Strahlenberg rightly wrote soon after, in 1730, “the most Arts are generally brought to decay by the fate of war, yet the Science of Geography is often increased and improved thereby.”⁴⁴ We do not know whether contemporary fans of political news were wont to move flags on the map to indicate the movement of “fronts,” but maps of the Baltic region after 1700 began to enjoy significant demand.

In 1702, the Amsterdam engraver Daniel de La Feuille (1640-1709) published the Portable Atlas, or, the New Theater of War in Europe (Atlas Portatif, ou, le Nou­veau Theatre de la Guerre en Europe), in which to depict the eastern theater he applied a version of the map of the Frenchman Antoine Pherotee de la Croix (1640-1715), The Kingdom of Poland with its Borders (Le Royavme de Pologne avec ses confins), created in 1693.⁴⁵ It features twelve shields with the coats of arms of the palatinates and territories that were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Common­wealth; included among them is the coat of arms of Ukraine (Ukrine - on the shield, Ukraine - on the map) with the Galician lion rampant, and the map itself bears the inscription “Ukraine, the Land of the Cossacks” (Ukrainepays des Cosaqyes). The inscription runs along Volhynia, the Kyiv region, and Podilia. The Galicia and Berestia (Beresteishchyna) regions are identified as Black Rus' (Rvssie Noire), separate from Ukraine, although the latter, as we can see, obvi­ously has Galician symbols.

Then, after 1708, when Charles XII, who was popular in Europe, set off for the exotic Cossack lands, it was necessary to quickly recall the work of Guillaume Le Vasseur de Beauplan and show interested politicians and citizens what resources Charles's ally “Prince Mazepa” (as of 1707, the hetman had the title of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire) possesses or lays claim to, namely: what is Ukraine (and let us emphasize, not Little Russia). For the situation in those parts was confused: despite the Poltava victory, Peter I was faced with the entry of the Ottoman Empire into the conflict, and he had conducted the unsuccessful Prut campaign and lost Azov, located on the boundary of Europe and Asia.

The quite “ordinary” Baltic war turned into a series of exotic expeditions along the borders of the Islamic East. The interested public needed a map of the theater of operations, and this purpose was served by the map of Ukraine or the Cossack land with the surrounding provinces of Wallachia, Moldavia, and Little Tartary (Vkrania qux et terra Cosaccorvm cum vicinis Walachix, Moldavia, Minorisq[ue] Tartarix provinciis; 1712) by the Nuremberg cartographer Johann Baptist Homann (1664-1724). Homann, the founder of the German atlas publishing school (it was in his atlas that this map appeared), tried to see to it that current political and military realities, changes in borders, and the international situation were reflected on the maps.⁴⁶ He was a highly respected man, and soon, in 1715, he was appointed Imperial Geographer to the Holy Roman Emperor.⁴⁷

On Homann's map, which was based on Beauplan's map (it was the “primary source” of most French and central European maps of Ukrainian lands at the time), Hetman Mazepa and his supporters were featured in the cartouche, and the site of the Battle of Poltava was marked. But of importance to us, in addition to this updating for Western Europeans of events in the struggle for Ukraine, is the identification in the cartouche: “Ukraine - land [country] of the Cossacks” (Vkrania que et Terra Cosaccorvm), which once again raised this name from the regional level to that of a country-state. Let us recall that for Beauplan, the “self­sufficiency” of Ukraine as a country (despite the existence of internal provinces) was “inconclusive,” inasmuch as its political formation was “underway” in his own time. In other words, because it was “emerging,” because essentially it was only the Dnipro region, without western Subcarpathian Rus', and the fact that it was a “country,” did not make it a “state” separate from Poland.

However, in Homann's work, fifty years after Beauplan, we already see that as a result of the long struggle of the Cossack hetmans between Warsaw and Moscow, despite the divisions along the Dnipro between the two external forces, Ukraine was no longer displayed on the map in the usual “Polish” colors, but at the same time was not colored in “Muscovite” hues. We see on the Homann map a “Ukraine” that among the maps of that time is as close as possible to its ethnic boundaries - from Sloboda Ukraine (Slobozhanshchyna) to Przemysl. It is difficult to say why Beauplan's image of Ukraine was expanded by Homann (in particular, westward to the Carpathians), since he obviously did not have any maps of Ukrainian ethnic lands, which only appeared in the nineteenth century. However, even to Beauplan, it seemed appropriate and logical to have the “Ukrainian space” border on, for ex­ample, the Black Sea - after all, it is impossible to show the sense and dynamics of life of the Wild Field and the Zaporozhians without including Tatar territories on the map of Ukraine. That is why he included Crimea in the second edition of his “map of Ukraine.” It is impossible to draw a map of Europe without the adjacent seas, and a specific state, without showing who it borders on; the image of the ter­ritory must be sufficiently informative, coherent, and logical.

In general, Homann was clearly trying to show the widest possible “theater of war,” since his map was, in fact, a map of southeastern Europe and the Black Sea region. In addition to Ukraine, it includes not only Moldavia, Wallachia, and Little Tartary (all Crimean domains), which are shown in the cartouche, but also Tran­sylvania, Bulgaria, Istanbul, the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus, and from the side of Muscovy - the Smolensk and Riazan regions, and the relevant part of the Wild Field. Clearly, the strategic antics of Charles and Peter could take the “front” of what was no longer simply a “northern” war to even more distant unknown lands. However, what is of interest to us is to see Homann's Ukraine in such a broad setting.

Since administrative divisions are distinguished by colors on this map, it is interesting to see the use of one color for the whole of Ukraine, from “Pokuttia” to the “Tatar Route to Muscovy” (Muravskyi Trail), alongside the existing Polish palatinates to the west of the Dnipro and the Polish-Muscovy border along the Dnipro. It is unlikely that Homann was impressed by the fact that in 1704-06 Mazepa imposed his hetmanship on both banks of the Dnipro and his army reached Zamosc (Zamostia), because de jure the power of his mace obviously did not extend to Przemysl anyway. Poland is clearly simply ignored on this map. The usual difference between the Ukraine-Dnipro region and Rus'-Subcarpathia is dealt with quite easily: the inscriptions “Red Rus'” (Russia Rubra) and “Ukraine” (Ukraina) stretch in parallel through the entire yellow “Ukrainian space.” The synonymy of Rus' and Ukraine was clearly obvious. However, Homann was not the only inventor of the latter “compromise.” In 1714, on the map in the atlas of the Leiden publisher Pieter van der Aa (1659-1733), which was a different version of Beauplan's, the cartouche contains the inscription “Ukraine, land of Red Rus'” (Ukraine, grand pays de la Russie Rouge: avec une partie de la Pologne, Moscovie, Bulgarie, Valachie, Podolie et Volhynie). It will be recalled that on the Dutchmen Gerard and Leonard Valk's map, this filling in with the same solid yellow color took take place a little earlier - in 1710. But, taken together, it suggests a flash of ideas of Ukrainian “sovereignty” in the military circumstances of the time.

Thereafter, Homann's map was reissued numerous times by his company and others (in particular, by Christoph Weigel of Nuremberg in 1719); the last surge of interest in it occurred during the Russo-Turkish wars of the 1730s.

Homann's vision of the southern theater of the Northern War was not the only one, however. At the same time, mapping eastern Europe “to reflect the war,” the English master cartographer Herman Moll (d. 1732) in 1708 printed in Lon­don A Map of Muscovy, Poland, Little Tartary, and the Black Sea, which was ob­viously based (judging by the name) on the criteria of “official” state entities. In 1712, he made a similar map for the leading military commander of the “parallel” War of the Spanish Succession, the Duke of Marlborough. According to Larry Wolff, it was this map that Voltaire described in his History of Charles XII (1731).⁴⁸ Ukraine clearly did not occupy a key position on it, and, even though it occupied both banks of the Dnipro, it was designated as a domain of Muscovy. At that time, the Muscovite state was an ally of England, and this loyalty was re­flected on “political maps.”

The famous French cartographer Guillaume Delisle (1675-1726), the older brother of Joseph-Nicolas who served in Russia, issued his Map of Muscovy (Carte de Moscovie) in 1706 that was convenient for use by interested readers. On it, the inscription “Ukraine - Land of the Cossacks” (Ukrainepays des Cosaques) passes through the Hetmanate and Sloboda Ukraine, and the map contains a separate inscription - “Zaporozhian Cossacks” (Cosaques Zaporoski). It is on the “obser­vations” of Guillaume Delisle that the Amsterdam geographers of French origin Jean Covens and Corneille Mortier, publishers of the map Theater of War in Little Tartary, Crimea, and the Black Sea, rely.⁴⁹ In the archival description of the map at the library of the University of Alberta (Canada), it is not clearly dated, but given its view (southern Ukraine, northern Black Sea region, and Crimea), it shows the most important strategic places from the time of the Azov campaigns and the Northern War (Azov, Poltava, Bendery) and was obviously created “to reflect the southern theater of the Northern War.” Of interest to us is that it already locates the Zaporozhian Sich in the lower reaches of the Dnipro, at the same time leaving the Old Sich on the Chortomlyk River.

Equally interesting is the identification of Ukraine on the map of The Kingdom of Poland including the States of Poland and Lithuania, divided into provinces, or Map of the States of Poland based on the Latest Observations and Newest Memories by the French cartographer Jean-Baptiste Nolin (1743).⁵⁰ Since this map is not in­cluded in the fundamental work, Ukraina na starodavnikh kartakh (Ukraine on Old Maps), this may be the first time that it is being introduced into scholarly circulation in Ukraine. On it, we see three versions of Rus'. One is “Polish or Red Rus'” (Russie Polonaise, ou Rouge; modern Ukraine), the second is southeastern Belarus (Russie Lithuanique ou Blanche; the rest of Belarus is “Lithuania”), and the third is “Muscovy or Great Rus'” (Moscovie ou la Grande Russie). “Ukraine” on the map is Podilia (Podolie) and the Dnipro region (Dnipro-Ukraine). The adjective “Small” (Petite) also appears, but it is unclear what it refers to, because

“Little Poland” (Petite ou Haute Pologne) is already shown in the area of Cracow and Lublin; this is probably Little Rus' (Mala Rus’). An extensive commentary for each land on the map explains the names used:

Polish Rus', which is also known as Little Rus', is divided into Lithuanian

Rus' and Red Rus'. Then we say (specify) that Lithuanian Rus' belongs to the state of Lithuania.

Red Rus' is a part of the Polish state and is divided into Separate Rus'

(Russieparticuliere) and Ukraine (Ukraine).

Separate Rus' consists of the palatinates of Kholm, Belz, and Rus'.

Ukraine is the land of the Cossacks, encompassing the provinces of

Volhynia and Podilia, or Polish Cossacks, Muscovite Cossacks, and Turk­ish Cossacks.⁵¹

The province of Volhynia, which is divided into Upper and Lower Vol- hynia, contains the palatinates of Lutsk and Kyiv, with the addition of a large part that belongs to the Muscovites.

The province of Podilia, which is divided into Upper and Lower Podilia, contains the palatinates of Kamianets and Bratslav, with the addition of a large part of Kamianets from the Turks since 1672.⁵²

An interesting Russian vision of the end of the Northern War is represented by the Map of the Great Russian State with Part of the Christian and Muslim Border [Regions] (Karta Velikogo Rossiiskogo Gosudarstva s chastiamipogranichnykh khris- tianskikh i musulmanskikh; St Petersburg [?], end of the 1720s).⁵³ This map is im­portant for the geography of Russia, in that it shows the results of the work of Petrine surveyors in mapping the central gubernias of Russia. For us, it represents reliance on outdated data from French cartography and sheer anachronisms: it completely disregards existing political borders, in particular, the western border of the Muscovite state, which is dated back to the time of Ivan the Terrible. It con­tains the borders of fifteenth-century Russian principalities; the Russian domains in Ukraine, acquired by Moscow in the seventeenth century, are shown extremely arbitrarily and obviously “with a reserve” by including a large part of the then still Polish-dominated Right Bank and Podilia. In some sense, these contours clearly resemble the Right-Bank Cossack domains of Khmel'nyts'kyi's time, which, moreover, are identified as “Kyivan,” “Little Russian,” and “Chernihivian.” However, the meaning of this remains unknown, since at the time only the Kyiv gubernia existed administratively on this territory (as of 1708), and it was only later that its parts of Belgorod, Orlov, and Sevsk provinces were formed into the Belgorod gubernia (in 1728). In Kyiv itself, a full-fledged gubernia administration was not established until 1765. At the time that this map was created, the Het- manate (Little Russia) as well as the Kyiv and Chernihiv regions were administered by the First Little Russian Collegium.

This map is a good illustration of the view of the Russian historian of cartog­raphy V. Batalov that “Peter I completely rejected the (Russian) cartographic heritage and started surveying the country from scratch. The reform in the field of cartography was so abrupt that among the scholars who specialize in the study of the nineteenth century the idea took root that Russia did not have its own cartography before Peter, and our old maps were nothing more than prim­itive copies of western European ones. The cost of modernization proved high: along with outdated methods, important geographical information was lost.”⁵⁴ Therefore, the final work of Petrine geographers from the St Petersburg Academy of Sciences Atlas of the Russian [Empire] (Atlas Rossiiskoi, 1745) drew criticism not only from Western colleagues, but also from influential Russian authors, in particular, Vasilii Tatishchev.

It is noteworthy that like Beauplan's or Homann's “vision,” the maps of their British contemporary, Herman Moll, also had a long life. Thus, the corresponding part of the map of Europe on the much later (by ninety years) English General Atlas (London, 1797) was very similar to the Moll map.

Herman Moll's political “flexibility” in naming territories and states is absurdly demonstrated in the luxurious A Catalogue of a New and Compleat Atlas, or Set of Twenty-Two Sheet Maps (London, 1719), where almost every map is dedicated to some important leader - from the English Queen Anne and the Duke of Marl­borough to Russian Tsar Peter I. The standard map bears the traditional name The Dominions of Muscovy in Europe. On it, “Russia,” as was customary for north­ern European cartography, is located near the White Sea. However, in the same edition of this atlas, on the map of Muscovy dedicated to “Peter Aleksovitz,” the name of the country changes to “Russia or Muscovy.” An equally interesting in­scription appears on the territory of the Hetmanate, which suggests melancholy reflections: “Lands of the old Ukraine (Urkrain)” or “Old lands of the Cossacks” - depending on how one reads it... Ukraine itself encompasses not only the Left­Bank Hetmanate, but also a strip of the Right Bank from Kyiv to the Black Forest and the Dnipro rapids, which are indicated separately, and the Sich (the Chor- tomlyk Sich, which by then had not existed for ten years).

“The glorious [exactly so! - K.H.] land of Ukraine” is depicted in the New Atlas (Atlas novus) of 1735 by Matthaus Seutter (1678-1756), who was then working in Augsburg, and this map was reissued there in 1777 by his pupil Tobias Lotter.⁵⁵ Seutter's practice was to extend “Red Rus'” from the Carpathians to Sloboda Ukraine alongside “Ukraine.” His “Cossacks” were found from Volhynia to Left­Bank Ukraine along the border. For Lotter, “Ukraine” consisted of the Bratslav and Kyiv regions.

While attempts to remove Ukraine from Russian maps began as early as the beginning of the eighteenth century, soon the vital importance of “cartographic propaganda” was most perceptibly felt by the Poles. At first it was the private in­terest of the last king of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Stanislaw August Poniatowski (reigned in 1764-95), who was a great admirer of cartography. How­ever, it was during his reign that the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Com­monwealth (1772, 1793, and 1795) occurred, from which time the very fact of the presence of the name “Poland” on the map was becoming a significant political step. Like Peter I, Stanislaw hired French specialists, and the irony of the day was that “while French cartography worked to keep up with Russian political expan­sion, it could also preserve the picture of Poland in defiance of Polish political extinction.”⁵⁶ The fact that Catherine II was already on Peter's throne, and that other Frenchmen and new Germans were now engaged in the Russian geograph­ical service, did not change anything. The inertia of Russian great power was rampant in the eighteenth century, and the enlightened Empress's interest in mapping her achievements was equal to that of the founder of the empire. They were indeed enlightened rulers.

As the Russian researcher of the history of cartography V. Batalov points out, in eighteenth-century Russia, the “administrative approach” to geography and cartography began to dominate: “geography was the science of tsarist of­ficials and ministers that enabled them to plan troop movements and various administrative measures... Maps were often used for propaganda purposes, demonstrating the monarch's success in promoting the arts and sciences and expanding borders.”⁵⁷

An illustration of the above is the General Map of the Russian Empire⁵* from the Russian Atlas, which consists of nineteen special maps representing “The All­Russian Empire with Borderlands, created according to geographical rules and the latest observations, with the added General Map of this great empire, through the efforts and work of the Imperial Academy of Sciences” (1745). Despite the fact that this first Russian official atlas was never reissued (separate additional print­ings were made later), it would remain “in force” until the next atlases of similar “status” appeared in 1792 and 1*76. Parts of Ukraine are shown here as the Kyiv and Belgorod gubernias. Ethnographic and historical names (in particular, “Ukraine” or “Little Russia”) are not used.

By the middle of the eighteenth century, after the resolution of the “Ukrainian question” by Poltava, it seemed that the maps of Ukraine based on Beauplan were forgotten and taken out of circulation by cartographic services and editorial of­fices. These lands once again found themselves on the margins of attention and by the 1770s seemed to have lost their geographical details. In a sense, Ukraine was there to be discovered anew. In 1769 the Briton Joseph Marshall wrote: “the country's being so extremely out of the way of all travellers, that not a person in a century goes to it, who takes notes of his observations with intention to lay them before the world.”⁵⁹ First of all, we must admit that he obviously exagger­ated, because to him far-away Poland was only a cartographic reality. Then let us point out that French cartographers still kept in mind the achievements of Beau­plan, but the political names of various Ukrainian territories were still a confused jumble for them. The visions of the French who worked for the Russians and the French who worked for Polish emigrants in France intersected in the same field. An illustration of the French “pro-Polish vision” is the map The Kingdom of Poland, divided into separate parts between Russia, Austria, and Prussia in 1772, 1793, and 1795 from the teaching atlas by Didier Robert de Vaugondy (Paris, 1797).⁶⁰ On it, Ukraine occupies the territory from the Dnister to the Dnipro, without taking in the “Russian” side of the latter. This was typical of the Polish cartographic tradition, where “Ukraine” was located on the right bank of the Dnipro, and “Little Russia” on the left bank.

Discovering us “anew,” Marshall wrote: “It has been supposed that the hemp and flax, coming to us from so northern a place as Petersburg, would grow in the midst of perpetual frosts and snows; but though we import it from latitude 60, yet it all grows in the Ukraine, which lies between latitude 47 and 52, and is besides as fine, mild a climate as any in Europe: this is the latitude of the south of France.”⁶¹ This Briton illustrates the extent to which cartography could confuse a person of the eighteenth century. Russian interference in Polish affairs during the Bar Con­federation (1769) introduced contradictions between what was written on the map and what the newspapers carried in their reports: “a province once Polish, and which all the maps I have lay down as a part of Poland,” became de facto Rus­sian. How are we to take this? To believe the map that this is Poland, or to believe the news that this is now Russia? He concluded that “the greatest changes happen in such remote parts of the world, without any thing of the matter being known.”⁶²

However, we must not be in such a hurry to bury the stubborn Guillaume Le Vasseur's map of Ukraine so quickly. This map still managed to be included in the Universal Atlas (Atlas Universel) by the father and son Robert de Vaugondy (Paris, 1757). However, we here also find a stubborn “Polish trail.” After all, Didier Robert de Vaugondy had been a pupil and employee of the Nancy Academy, which was maintained by the former Polish king, a supporter of the Enlightenment (and let us remember, at one time, a correspondent of Ivan Mazepa), Stanislaw Leszczynski (ruled in 1704-09,1733-34), in his life as the Duke of Lorraine (1738­66). Thus, cartographic issues related to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had certain priorities. After all, “Ukraine” was a cartographic nuance on the maps of Poland, in particular.

If we take a larger perspective - for example, a map of Europe - in Robert de Vaugondy we will see only the border between Poland and European Russia along the Dnipro. Therefore, at the end of the eighteenth century, in light of the “con­traction” and disappearance of Poland itself, the “Ukrainian story” fell to a level below it in the ranking of probable political-cartographic problems. Poland be­came a “former state,” but remained a “country”; Ukraine, owing to much less, or completely absent, political relevance, began to disappear as a name on the map, being mentioned less and less often.

It depended on the good will of cartographers and, more likely, the institutions for which they worked, whether to leave Poland on the map (with its usual Ukraine on the Right Bank) after its final partition in 1795, or not. Given the al­ready customary presence from the middle of the sixteenth century of state and administrative borders on maps, there existed an obvious right to choose: to show only states (then there would no longer be a Poland, let alone a Ukraine, as ad­ministrative entities), or to also pay attention to “countries” and “peoples.” As for the latter, in the post-medieval period, the “peoples” were left out of Europe, as the barbarian stateless world rapidly receded to the periphery - the New World, Africa, distant Asia, and Oceania. The “peoples” were identified with barbarian stateless tribes that were no longer there. Europe was a continent of nation-states. In Europe, to get on the map as a “non-state,” it was necessary to represent a cer­tain exclusive community - like the Ukrainian Cossacks, who lasted on the maps of Eastern Europe for quite a long time in the eighteenth century as “Cossacks.” However, since ethnographic maps only came into existence in the middle of the “nationalized” nineteenth century, it was difficult for the “Poles without Poland” to find a legitimate place. Although “Poles” were not featured on maps until the appearance of ethnographic maps, Poland itself remained stubbornly on Western European maps - as a separate object, albeit de jure irrelevant. It was necessary to somehow represent Poland on the map as a country, not a state. The exception, of course, was on the maps of those who divided it - Russia, Austria, and Prussia. There Poland was absent.

The significance of this contradiction was not yet very evident to people on the cusp of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; they saw it rather as a then- current political dispute between the anti- and pro-Polish great powers, even though it signaled the coming division of the continent between “peoples in coun­tries” and “peoples without states,” which did not coincide with “states” and “em­pires.” However, this issue arose widely on the agenda of European politics only during the First World War, when they began to seek to rebuild the political ge­ography of Europe on the basis of ethnographic maps.

In a secret agreement in 1797, the states-parties to the third partition of Poland determined that the name of Poland itself must “disappear once and for all.” Something in this wording recalls the late Catherine II's famous demand: “so that the very names of the hetmans are forgotten.” In a broad context, the Russian cartographic historian Vladimir Bulatov's quote is quite fitting: “If Peter could have seen the state of Russian cartography at the end of the reign of Catherine II, he would have said that exactly what he had wanted in this area had been achieved.”⁶³ This can be said about both cartography and the state and influence of the Russian Empire.

The fact that Poland, in the words of the American Thomas Jefferson, became “a country erased from the map of the world by the dissensions of its own citi- zens”⁶⁴ gave rise to a clear precedent: is it enough to erase a country from the map in order for the “question” to be resolved? And does presence on a map nec­essarily mean existence?

Having appeared in the “Ptolemaic” editions of the fifteenth century as a “coun­try” or a “state” (this difference was not of great interest to anyone), it was some­what difficult for Poland to just disappear from the map after 350 years of “existence.” It was therefore left to roam under the cover of imperial borders, for which it did not exist. A similar thing happened to Ukraine: despite its shorter life on political maps and less visible statehood of unclear sovereignty (barely sixty years - from the uprising of Khmel'nyts'kyi to Mazepa's opponency), it also appeared on maps.

Thus, it is difficult to determine why and to whom exactly we should be obliged. In the middle and second half of the eighteenth century, there was no external champion of the “Ukrainian question” to commit such “cartographic sabotage.” Or did this “bifurcation” between Poland and Russia along the Dnipro of what was regarded as a certain whole maintain a certain intrigue? (Although a border along a major river was extremely convenient for delineation.) Or did the long Russo-Turkish wars over the Northern Black Sea region keep attention on the usual mission of the Cossacks in these lands, the exoticism of which confused their state affiliation (which changed many times)? Should we deride the “pro­fessional inertia” and conservatism of cartographers in the spirit of: let's wait a little longer so as not to have to redraw?

Thus, for example, the Venetian Map of Europe of 1781, created by the afore­mentioned Rizzi Zannoni, shows Red Rus', Volhynia, and Podilia as Polish palatinates, although at that time Galicia had already belonged to Austria for nine years. Or the British map of 1799, which is called Russia in Europe: with its dis­memberments from Poland in 1773,1793, and 1795. The western borders of the Russian Empire did not appear “final” yet - Napoleon’s intervention in the “Pol­ish question” made them relevant again. The aforementioned English General Atlas of 1797 (it still contains Ukraine, in contrast to Cary’s New Universal Atlas of 1808, which is close in time), nothing doubting, showed the map of Poland divided between three neighbors as a separate country and a separate map. As did Lucas Fielding’s 1823 General Atlas, published in overseas Baltimore.⁶⁵

Summing up the journey of Cossack Ukraine across the maps of the seven­teenth and eighteenth centuries, we can say that after the introduction of its name in European toponymy by Beauplan, it remained fixed in the minds of Western Europeans for a long time as the “country of the Cossacks.” The Cossacks were generally considered to be part of the “Ruthenian people” (rus’koho narodu).

Most frequently, a narrower localization of Ukraine was found in the Dnipro region and Podilia, or a wider localization, when all the Ruthenian palatinates of the Kingdom of Poland were thus identified (but along with the parallel name of “Red Rus'”). During the Khmel'nyts'kyi Uprising, the Ruin, numerous anti­Turkish campaigns, and the events of the Northern War, Ukraine became a fa­miliar geographical feature on the map of Europe, despite the fact that it failed to consolidate its sovereignty and was ultimately divided along the Dnipro be­tween Poland and Russia. However, this division became firmly established on Western maps only after a major delay in the 1750s. Sometimes, beginning from the 1710s, Ukraine was designated in a separate color and outline within the actual ethnic borders of Ukraine, avoiding Russian or Polish colors.

Until the beginning of the eighteenth century, there was a fairly clear distinction between Ukraine (or Red Rus') and Muscovy, but after Poltava, as St Petersburg’s expansion to the west and south unfolded, the importance of the Hetmanate in European politics waned. Interest in Ukraine was occasionally revived during the Russo-Turkish wars, but the development of the Russian cartographic industry and the promotion of the official name of Russia in Western literature, in turn, introduced the toponym “Little Russia” (with respect to the Russian Left Bank) into cartographic circulation, and the Polish-French tradition left Ukraine only on the “formerly Polish” Right Bank. This, ultimately, signaled the final incor­poration of Ukraine into the Russian state, which during the eighteenth century ceased to be called Muscovy in the West. In circumstances where Rus’ and Rosiia were designated with the same word in the leading European languages, this would continue to be a problem for the terminological positioning of the Dnipro- Subcarpathian (Ukrainian, Little Russian, South Russian) national movement, which would ultimately lean toward the general name “Ukraine” and “Ukraini­ans,” despite indisputable grounds for calling themselves the “authentic Rus'” and “Ruthenians.”

With the partitioning of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth among Rus­sia, Austria, and Prussia and the emergence of the “Polish question” as the most important in Eastern Europe, any Ukrainian issues in cartography were only of an episodic and marginal nature for the next hundred years. Ukraine's gradual disappearance from the map marked a transitional stage from the time of the Cossack identity of the early modern era to the formulation of the modern Ukrainian national project on a new basis. However, it would now rely in its ter­ritorial self-designations on the innovations of previously unknown thematic (special) maps - ethnographic ones. A leading role on them would be played not by state or administrative borders, but by the area of distribution of a ver­nacular language and thereby a certain ethnic group. Furthermore, certain “pre­dictions” in this context on European maps of the early eighteenth century would now acquire scientific confirmation.

Translated from the Ukrainian by Marta Skorupsky

NOTES

Originally published as: Kyrylo Halushko, “Ukraina na kartakh XVII-XVIII st.: vid ‘Dykoho Polia' do ‘Krainy Kozakiv',” in Ukrains’ka derzhava druhoi polovyny XVII-XVIIIst.:polityka, suspil'stvo, kul’tura, ed. Valerii Smolii (Kyiv, 2014), 530-55. Copyright 2014 by nasu Institute of History of Ukraine. Translated and reprinted with permission. For clarity, Ukrainian forms in the original are frequently retained in parentheses.

1 M. Vavrychyn, Ia. Dashkevych, and U. Kryshtalovych, Ukraina na staro- davnikh kartakh. Kinets’XV-persha polovyna XVII st. (Kyiv, 2004).

2 R. Sossa, Istoriia kartohrafuvannia terytorii Ukrainy: pidruchnyk dlia studentiv VNZ (Kyiv, 2007).

3 K. Halushko, Ukraina na karti Ievropy (Kyiv, 2014).

4 Quoted from D. Nalyvaiko, Ochyma Zakhodu: retseptsiia Ukrainy v Zakhidnii Ievropi XI-XVIIIst. (Kyiv, 1998), 352.

5 See its publication in the atlas by Joan Blaeu: Geographia quae est Cosmo­graphiae Blavianae... Amsterdami, Lahore et Subtibus Ioannis Blaev, MD­CLXV. Facsimile edition: Blaeu Joan, Atlas Mayor of 1665 (Cologne, 2005), 107.

6 Tatiana Tairova-Iakovleva, “Do pytannia pro istorychni i terytorial'ni uiave- lennia kozats'koi starshyny naprykintsi XVII st.,” Ukra'ins 'kyi istorychnyi zhurnal 4 (2012): 71.

7 Ibid., 72.

8 Vavrychyn, Dashkevych, and Kryshtalovych, Ukratna na starodavnikh kartakh, 28-9.

9 Ibid., 46-7, 62-3.

10 Quoted from P. Sas, Politychna kul'tura ukratns’koho suspil'stva (kinets’ 16-pershapolovyna 17st.) (Kyiv, 1998), 100.

11 From 1485, Ivan III Vasilievich began using the title “grand prince of all Rus',” and his son Vasilii III Ivanovich (1505-1533) called himself “tsar and lord of all Rus'; in 1547, at the coronation of Ivan IV the Terrible, he was titled “tsar and grand prince of all Rus'.”

12 Nalyvaiko, Ochyma Zakhodu, 362.

13 Ibid.

14 Pierre Chevalier, A Discourse of the Original, Countrey, Manners, Government and Religion of the Cossacks, with Another of the Precopian Tartars and the His­tory of the Wars of Cossacks against Poland (London, 1672), 2. In the French edition: “des volontaires des frontiers de Russie, Wolhinie & Podolie, & autres Prouninces de Pologne,” see Pierre Chevalier, Histoire de la guerre des Cosaques contre la Pologne (Paris, 1668), 2.

15 Chevalier, A Discourse of the Original, Countrey, Manners, 3. In the French edition: “Le Roy stienne Batory auquel la Pologne est redeuable de plusieurs beaux reglemens, considerant le seruice qu'il pourroit tirer de ces coureurs, pour la garde de la frontière de Russie & de Podolie, tousiours exposec aux incursions des Tartares, en forma vn corps de Milice, en luy donnant la Ville & le Territoire de Trethymirow sur le Borysthene, pour leur seruir de place d'armes.” See Chevalier, Histoire de la guerre des Cosaques contre la Pologne, 3. Of course, the Cossacks themselves appeared earlier, but Stefan Batory left his mark by doubling the number of registered Cossacks begun by Sigismund II Augustus in 1572.

16 Chevalier, A Discourse of the Original, Countrey, Manners, 9. In the French edition: “On peut à present inferer de tout de diseours des Cosaques que ce n'eft qu'vne Milice & non pas vne Nation comme plusieurs ont creu.” See Chevalier, Histoire de la guerre des Cosaques contre la Pologne, 14.

17 Nalyvaiko, Ochyma Zakhodu, 361.

18 Chevalier, A Discourse of the Original, Countrey, Manners, 17-18.

19 Ibid., 17-20.

20 Nalyvaiko, Ochyma Zakhodu: retseptsiia Ukrainy v Zakhidnii levropi XI-XVIII st., 359.

Nalyvaiko, Ochyma Zakhodu: retseptsiia Ukrainy v Zakhidnii Ievropi XI-XVIII st., 353-

la. Dashkevych, “Ukrains'ka boplaniana,” in Hiiom Levasser de Boplan. Opys Ukrainy, transl. la. I. Kravets and Z. Borysiuk (Kyiv, 1990); M. Vavrychyn, “Hiiom Levasser de Boplan - kartohraf Ukrainy,” in Spetsial 'nyi i dokladnyi plan Ukrainy z nalezhnymy do nei voievodstvamy, okruhamy i provintsiiamy (Kyiv-Lviv, 2000), 5-13.

Adam Boussingault, Le nouveau Theatre du monde, ou l’abrege des etats et em­pires de l’Univers. Ouvrage tres utile aux voyageurs (Paris, 1681), 380; Nalyvaiko, Ochyma Zakhodu, 378.

Nalyvaiko, Ochyma Zakhodu, 357.

University of Alberta Archives (Canada).

The Chernihiv-Siversk region was acquired by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Truce of Deulino with Muscovy of 1618.

“Karta koronnykh pol's'kykh zemel z podilom na holovni zemli i voievod- stva...” in Vavrychyn, Dashkevych, and Kryshtalovych, Ukraina na staro- davnikh kartakh, 66-7.

“Karta korolivstva Uhorshchyny ta krain, iaki vkhodyly do n'oho,” in Vavrychyn, Dashkevych, and Kryshtalovych, Ukraina na starodavnikh kartakh, 74-5.

“Heneral'na karta Ukrainy abo Podil's'ke, Kyivs'ke ta Bratslavs'ke voievodstva nanovo nakresleni,” in Vavrychyn, Dashkevych, and Kryshtalovych, Ukraina na starodavnikh kartakh, 76-7.

“Nova karta Rechi Pospolytoi i zahal'nyi ohliad Pol'shchi, shcho vkliuchaie Velyku i Malu Pol'shchi, Velyke kniazivstvo Lytovs'ke, Pruss'ke kniazivstvo, Kurliandiiu, Rus', Ukrainu, Mazoviiu, Volyn' i Podilia,” in Vavrychyn, Dashkevych, and Kryshtalovych, Ukraina na starodavnikh kartakh, 86-7. “Koronni pol's'ki zemli,” in Vavrychyn, Dashkevych, and Kryshtalovych, Ukraina na starodavnikh kartakh, 144-5; “Karta suchasnoho svitu,” in Vavrychyn, Dashkevych, and Kryshtalovych, Ukraina na starodavnikh kartakh, 152.

“Karta shliakhiv korolivstva Pol'shcha z usima ioho zemliamy,” in Vavrychyn, Dashkevych, and Kryshtalovych, Ukraina na starodavnikh kartakh, 152.

“Nova karta Moskovii, abo Rosii,” in Vavrychyn, Dashkevych, and Krysh- talovych, Ukraina na starodavnikh kartakh, 158-9.

“Heohrafichna karta Pol's'koho korolivstva,” in Vavrychyn, Dashkevych, and Kryshtalovych, Ukraina na starodavnikh kartakh, 176-7.

“Azof,” in Vavrychyn, Dashkevych, and Kryshtalovych, Ukraina na staro- davnikh kartakh, 154-5.

Pol s ke korolivstvo, rozpodilene na Velyke kniazivstvo Lytovs ke ta bil shu chastynu - Pol'shchu, Prussiiu, Bilu i Chervonu Rus', Volyn', Podilia, Ukrainu,” in Vavrychyn, Dashkevych, and Kryshtalovych, Ukratna na starodavnikh kartakh, 112-13.

Larry Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe. The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment (Stanford, 1994), 145-6.

I. Fomenko, Obraz mira na starinnykh portolanakh. Prichernomor’e, konets XIII-XVII v. (Moscow, 2011), 174-6.

Quoted from I.K. Fomenko, Itogovaia karta Moskovii 16 veka iz sobraniia gim (Moscow, 2010), 8-9. For more detailed information about the maps of Muscovy of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, see B.A. Rybakov, Russkie karty Moskovii XV-nachala XVI veka (Moscow, 1974).

Geographia quae est Cosmographiae Blavianae... Amsterdami, Lahore et Subtibus Ioannis Blaev, MDCLXV. Facsimile edition: Blaeu Joan, Atlas Mayor of 1665 (Cologne, 2005).

Sossa, Istoriia kartohrafuvannia terytorit Ukratny, 89.

“Evropa, propisanaiia Velikomu Tsariu Moskovskomu Petru Alekseevichu prisnomu prirostiteliu i Slavneishemu pobediteliu Azovskoi kreposti,” in Karty galantnogo veka. Shedevry kartograficheskogo iskusstva iz sobraniia Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo Muzeiia, dvd edition (Moscow, 2011). V. Kravchenko, “Im'ia dlia Ukrainy,” in V. Kravchenko, Ukratna, imperiia, Rosiia: vybrani statti z modernot istorit ta istoriohrafit (Kyiv, 2011), 11-44. See also Volodymyr Kravchenko's contribution to this volume. Philipp Johann von Strahlenberg, An Historico-Geographical Description of the North and Eastern Parts of Europe and Asia, but More Particularly of Russia, Siberia, and Great Tartary (London, 1738), 5.

The Mapping of Ukraine. European Cartography and Maps of Early Modern Ukraine, 1550-1799. An exhibition from the archives of the Ukrainian Museum and private collections. Guest Curator Bohdan S. Kordan (New York, 2008), 66-7.

L. Bagrov, Istoriia kartografii (Moscow, 2004), 218.

The Mapping of Ukraine, 82.

Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe, 157.

Guillaume Delisie, “Theatre de la guerre dans La Petite Tartarie, La Crimee, La Mer Noire” (Amsterdam, circ. 1740), accessed 23 July 2020, https://polona. pl/item/theatre-de-la-guerre-dans-la-petite-tartarie-la-crimee-la-mer-noire- c,NjYzMTU3MDg/o/#info:metadata.

Jean-Baptiste Nolin, “Le Royaume de Pologne Comprenant Les Etats de Pologne et de Lithuanie, Divisez En Provinces et Subdivisez En Palatinats,” 1697, accessed 23 July 2020, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/i2i48/btvib59O5i988.

This refers to the different political subordinations of the Ukrainian Cossacks.

Jean-Baptiste Nolin, “Le Royaume de Pologne Comprenant Les Etats de Pologne et de Lithuanie, Divisez En Provinces et Subdivisez En Palatinats,” 1697, accessed 23 July 2020, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/i2i48/btvib59O5i988. Karty galantnogo veka. Shedevry kartograficheskogo iskusstva iz sobraniia Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo Muzeia. dvd edition (Moscow, 2011). Ibid.

Matthaus Seutter, Atlas Novus Sive Tabulae Geographicae: Totius Orbis Faciem, Partes, Imperia, Regna Et Provincias Exhibentes (Ausgsburg, 1735).

Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe, 147.

Karty galantnogo veka. Shedevry kartograficheskogo iskusstva iz sobraniia Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo Muzeia. dvd edition (Moscow, 2011).

Atlas Rossiiskoi, sostoiashchei iz deviatnatsati spetsial’nykh kart, predstavli- aiushchikh Vserossiiskuiu Imperiiu s pogranichnymi zemliami (St Petersburg, 1745), accessed 23 July 2020, https://dlib.rsl.ru/viewer/oioo334oo8i#?page=i. Quoted in Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe, 147.

Didier Robert de Vaugondy, Royaume de Pologne divise et corrige selon les partages faits en 1772,1793 et 1795 entre la Russie, la Prusse et l’Autriche (Paris, 1797), accessed 23 July 2020, https://polona.pl/item/royaume-de-pologne- divise-et-corrige-selon-les-partages-faits-en-i772-i793-et-i795-entre,MTcz MTk5MzA/ o/#info:metadata.

Quoted in Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe, 148.

Ibid., 148.

V.E. Bulatov, “Opisanie eksponatov vystavki “Iskusstva radi i nauki...” Gosudarstvennyi Istoricheskii Muzei, Moscow, 11.07-31.08.2011” in Karty galantnogo veka. Shedevry kartograficheskogo iskusstva iz sobraniia Gosu­darstvennogo Istoricheskogo Muzeia. dvd edition (Moscow, 2011).

Quoted in Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe, 151.

Lucas Fielding, A General Atlas Containing Distinct Maps of All the Known Countries in the World (Baltimore, 1823).