According to the size of work and the conclusions will be extensive. I will give as my own all conclusions that I made based on independent analysis of source material. In some cases, my findings coincide with already published previously in the literature. In such cases, the reader must understand: I do not attribute strangers mind. I verified these results by an independent review of sources.
Hypothetical prehistory of Terekhtemyriv
Prehistory is period prior to the first written message. For Terekhtemyriv it covers the time from 2 half 13 to 1 half 16th centuries. All statements on this period are derived from retrospective references in later sources and are hypothetical.
1. Name Terekhtemyriv is an adaptation in the Ukrainian language environment Tatar name Terek-Temir (with possible value "iron health"). This place name comes from anthroponomy (name of the person, the founder and first settler).
2. This name fits to a large series of distinctly Tatar names around Kaniv like Kagarlyk or Karatul.
3. The foundation of all these settlements can be determined within 2 half 13 – 1 half 14th centuries, during operation of the Golden administrative center in Kaniv.
4. Zarub monastery (in the modern village Monastyrok) operated continuously since ancient time and over all the dark ages of Dnieper region history.
5. In the 15th century (presumably, in the reign of the Grand Prince Simeon Olelkovich, 1455 – 1470) monastery received substantial land grants – at least three villages and other lands. These villages were destroyed during the attacks of the Crimean Tatars in the 4th quarter 15 – 1 half 16th century.
The real history of Terekhtemyriv
Next statements are no longer a hypothesis, but proofed results.
1. History of Terekhtemyriv in 2 half 16 – 18 cent. clearly divided into real, based on the source data, and a fantastic, invented in general terms in the 2 quarter of the 17th century and later widely popularized in historiography.
2. The real history of Terekhtemyriv was known in historical literature only in individual episodes and first reconstructed (within a stored source base) in my work.
3. The greatest merit in clarifying the true history of Terekhtemyriv made E. Rulikowski (1892) and A. Storozhenko (1904).
4. At a time when Ostafi Dashkovich was Kaniv starosta (1508 – 1535 years), he received Terekhtemyriv to private ownership from Grand Duke Sigismund the 1st.
5. After O. Dashkovich's bequest the village passed to Kiev-Pechersk monastery that owned it very short time and exchanged for other property. Terekhtemyriv returned to fund public lands and belonged to the Kaniv starostvo.
6. Somewhere in the not defined precisely the time between 1590 and 1594 years Terekhtemyriv became the property of the Cossacks. We do not know exactly when and in what form it did. We assume that it was freehold (unauthorized seizure), on which the Polish government simply turned a blind eye.
7. There were no political events associated with Terekhtemyriv during the Cossack rebellions of the 16th – 1 half 17th century.
8. In 1596 as a punishment for Nalyvaiko's rebellion the Commonwealth parliament passed away Terekhtemyriv the Cossacks (not remembering at the same time as they acquired it). It was the first Sejm Resolution on Terekhtemyriv. In total, during 1590 – 1717 years parliament seven times accepted different resolutions on Terekhtemyriv.
9. Terekhtemyriv was given (presumably in the same 1596) in posession to Gregory Gulyanitsky, who owned it until his death (approximately – 1614).
10. Not later than 1615 (probably at the end of 1614) Cossacks regained Terekhtemyriv that was authorized by resolutions of Zhytomyr (1614) and Olshanka (1617) comissions.
11. Between 1615 – 1622 he Cossacks vigorously extended their Terekhtemyriv possessions, capturing the nearby villages, causing complaints gentry. These complaints remained at that time without consequences.
12. On the liberated in this way from the Polish government territory was an old monastery, which from 1590 was called not Zarub but Terekhtemyriv one. During this time it led the first known by the name Abbot – Ezekiel Kurtsevych (led monastery in 1615 – 1624 years), with a personal title of Archimandrite.
On the margin: Ezekiel Kurtsevych was not born in 1589, as served guides, but much earlier, presumably in 1570 – 1575 years.
13. I assume that plan for establishement a permanent Cossacks military base in Terekhtemyriv was designed by Peter Konashevych-Sagaidachny. It is documented – to justify these measures for Polish authorities Cossacks proclaim need to have a hospital for the wounded and sick comrades. Actual information about the functioning of the hospital is very stingy.
14. In 1620's Terekhtemyriv monastery played a political role (it twice – in May 1620 and in January 1621 – visited by Jerusalem Patriarch Theophanes, abbot Kurtsevych was ordained bishop of Vladimir; here was imprisoned in 1622 Uniate monks; in January 1625 in the monastery met pretender to the Turkish throne Jakhia with Metropolitan Job Boretsky, by which Jakhia's messengers were sent to Moscow).
15. In February 1638 in Terekhtemyriv was held re-registration Cossacks (after the defeat of rebellion in 1637). In 1638, Sejm introduced ordination of Cossack troops, under which Terekhtemyriv was taken away of Cossacks and converted into a residence of the Polish Commissioner of Cossacks. Villages that Cossacks were attached to Terekhtemyriv were transferred Kaniv starosta S. Lasch.
16. Ordination in 1638 included the residence of Cossack artillery in Terekhtemyriv, but to fulfill this decision proved impossible. Cossack artillery never stayed in Terekhtemyriv.
17. In the period 1590 – 1648 Cossacks owned Terekhtemyriv total 30 years (1590? – 1596, 1615 – 1638), representing 50 % of the time. Rest of the time it belonged to the Poles.
18. Since the beginning of the revolution Khmelnytsky Terekhtemyriv became company center of Kaniv regiment. Information about this company extremely rare.
19. The tomb cross of Cossack Ivan Mukha (+ 1652) preserved in Terekhtemyriv. Ivan Mukha referred to the register in 1649. This is an important monument inspite the majority of centesimal towns can not boast of any monuments Cossack era, much less – Khmelnytsky era monuments.
20. In 1650, King Jan-Casimir in the confirmation of Zborow treaty gave the Cossack Army privilege of owning Terekhtemyriv. Similar privilegee he provided in 1652 (after Bilotserkivsky treaty) and in 1659 (after Hadiach agreement). Neither the previous nor subsequent Polish kings did not gave such privileges.
21. In 1654 during talks in Moscow Ukrainian ambassadors raised questions about the tsar's charter for Terekhtemyriv. The tsarist government rejected this claim, and the Russian Tsar did not provided or approved any privileges for Terekhtemyriv.
22. In 1660 the Terekhtemyriv abbot Joasaph Krekhivsky headed the embassy in Moscow with political orders. On this occasion he tried (unsuccessfully) to get a tsar's charter to certain estates. Other important items were asked to provide a white iron (tin) on the roof for the church and paints for icons – indirect evidence of the presence of icon painting workshop in the monastery.
23. Since 1661, Terekhtemyriv repeatedly became a place of fighting and passed from hand to hand in the fight left-bank and right-bank hetmans.
24. In September 1678 the Turkish and Tatar troops destroyed Terekhtemyriv and monastery. Kaniv regiment was evacuated to the left bank of the Dnieper and disbanded, only Terekhtemyriv company remained, which by 1678 occupied several villages on the left bank and belonged to Pereyaslav regiment.
25. Perpetual Peace in 1686 between Russia and the Commonwealth ordered the parties do not settle right bank of the Dnieper, including Terekhtemyriv.
26. In connection with the organization in 1700 Pereyaslav Diocese Hetman Ivan Mazepa and Tsar Peter 1st published a number of documents that transferred the property Terekhtemyriv to episcopal chair. But there was no real impact of these documents – the town remained inhabited.
27. After the final transfer of the right-bank Ukraine under the control of the Polish army (May 1714) Terekhtemyriv in 1715 was transferred to private ownership of Poland Mr. A. Tripolski and continue throughout the 18th century passed from one Polish master to another.
28. Terekhtemyriv monastery was restored in 1717 as a Uniate, but it was small and dilapidated approx. 1789. Documents on the its functioning currently unknown.
29. After the 2nd parsing of Poland (1793) Terekhtemyriv became privately owned by Russian landowners Gudym-Levkovych. Russian authorities did not made attempts to restore the monastery.
Fantastic "history" of Terekhtemyriv
Fantastic history of Terekhtemyriv (Terekhtemyriv legend) is part of a larger legend – Báthory's (the legend about the reform of the Cossack troops by King Stefan Báthory). Báthory truly cared about improving the organization of the Cossack troops, and the very fact that reform is real. The legend is that to this real fact artificially connected changes which were introduced much later, for example, the 6000th Register or division into territorial regiments. From these clearly erroneous points of Báthory's legend modern historiography freed, while its Terekhtemyriv component continues to repeat.
Terekhtemyriv legend comes to following false allegations.
1. King Stefan Báthory granted Terekhtemyriv for Cossacks.
Since this statement is central to the whole legend, consider it wrong in details.
– S. Báthory's charters, which was carried out reform, preserved, but they contain no mention of Terekhtemyriv.
– The charter of 1578 appointed Cherkassy starosta M. Vishnevetsky as Cossack army chief, and defined Cherkasy as point of army organization, that excludes any role Terekhtemyriv.
– Transactions of the Cossack troops during Báthory's rule good traced (how sources allowed), and never reached its stay in Terekhtemyriv.
– Register of Cossack army in 1581 provides amply information about the origin of the Cossacks. It registered many residents of Cherkassy and Kaniv, but no Cossacks from Terekhtemyriv.
– Polish chronicler Joachim Belsky gave a detailed description of the Cossacks after stories of Jan Oryszowski – long-time (since 1578) Cossack leader. Oryszowski knew nothing about Terekhtemyriv and did not mention it in his story.
– Poem «Epicedion» describing the life and deeds of Cherkasy starosta M. Vishnevetsky, published in 1585, does not mention Terekhtemyriv.
– Polish historians and geographers – contemporaries of S. Báthory – served in a whole lot of information about the Cossacks, but do not mention Terekhtemyriv.
– The letter from S. Kishka (1601) contained mention of the S. Báthory's charter for the Cossacks in the case of inheritance (1582) – that the documents actually existed, it mentioned later. But we have no such later mentions about the document on Terekhtemyriv.
– King Jan-Casimir gave Cossacks three universals of Terekhtemyriv (1650, 1652, 1659). Any of them does not contain mention of previous S. Báthory's charter, and the mention of "kings antecessors" that supposedly issued such charters, is record keeping template with no real content.
– The record of Stefan Báthory's grant of Terekhtemyriv first appeared in 1645 in the chronicle of P. Piasecki in the most advanced text of Báthory's legend, imaginated by Piasecki.
Therefore, this statement appeared much later S.Báthory's times, and we have every reason to say: Stefan Báthory never provided Terekhtemyriv for Cossacks.
2. Terekhtemyriv – castle, fortress.
There is no evidence of the existence of fortifications in Terekhtemyriv.
3. Some county belonged to Terekhtemyriv.
The story of belonging of a county (half of the county) to Terekhtemyriv is distorted and exaggerated echo of Cossack possession in Terekhtemyriv Peninsula (1614 – 1638).
4. Terekhtemyriv – plave of Cossack councils.
There is no evidence about holding these councils in Terekhtemyriv.
5. Terekhtemyriv – the seat of Cossack government, Hetman.
There is no evidence on the presence of hetman or someone of general officers in Terekhtemyriv.
6. Terekhtemyriv – Cossack garrison location (place of wintering Cossacks).
There is no evidence on the presence of Cossack garrisons in Terekhtemyriv. There is also no evidence that all Cossacks wintered in Terekhtemyriv.
7. Terekhtemyriv – Cossack arsenal, the seat of the Cossack artillery.
There is no evidence on the presence artillery or arsenal in Terekhtemyriv.
8. Terekhtemyriv – location of Cossack treasury.
There is no evidence the Cossack treasury in Terekhtemyriv or the assembling the spoil of hiking here.
9. Terekhtemyriv – assembly point in Cossack uprisings.
There is no evidence of at least some active role of Terekhtemyriv in Cossack uprisings.
Thus, all of the statements are now fully refuted. It is good time to pass them to the chamber of historical tales.
Real historians of Terekhtemyriv
To find out the real history of Terekhtemyriv most important were works by E. Rulikowski (1892), and A. Storozhenko (1904). All subsequent historiography has not given anything substantial, mixing a small amount of real facts with lots of fantastic claims.
The next step in the study of real history of Terekhtemyriv is my work.
Fantastic historiography of Terekhtemyriv
1. Found that early, immature form of Terekhtemyriv legend contained in the works of J. Rutski (1626), J. Sobieski (1646) and G. Beauplan G. (1651). Made assumption that their common source was an oral narrative that existed in the Polish government and military circles. Made assumption that this story was an echo of the Sagaidachny's plan – create a Cossacks military base in Terekhtemyriv. Found that the records of these works had no effect on subsequent historiography.
On the margin: Refuted the false allegations, that Báthory's legend formed in the Ukrainian community and from it was borrowed by Polish historiography.
2. Found that in the most spacious and perfect form of this oral story was processed by P. Piasecki in his chronicle (1645). Found that this story, attributed to the time of S. Báthory without a specific date, includes mentions of Cossacks sea voyages 1614 and 1616, the Cossack system changes introduced after Kurukiv agreement in 1625, so it is a generalized sketch of the Cossack system and only mechanically attributed to S. Báthory's time.
3. Found that story by P. Piasecki had a significant influence on the Polish, German and French historiography in 2 half 17th century.
On the margin: Found that the engraving "Terekhtemyriv", included in the publication «Cyaneae» (Augsburg: 1687) is the result of imagination engraver from Augsburg and has no relation to the real Terekhtemyriv.
On the margin: Found that the news of Terekhtemyriv the text «Cyaneae» borrowed from P. Piasecki.
On the margin: Determined that those news is repeated in the book «Theatrum Cosmographico-historicum» (Augsburg: 1688).
4. Found that the native Ukrainian Historiography of 2 half 17th century (Eyewitness' chronicle) does not contains mention of Terekhtemyriv.
5. Found that erudite Ukrainian historiography of the 18th century contains stories and news about Terekhtemyriv borrowed from Polish and partly German sources – P. Piasecki, S. Twardowski, S. Pufendorf.
6. Found that Terekhtemyriv legend contained in the works of S. Savitsky (1718), S. Velychko (1720) and G. Grabianka (1719). The first two works had no effect on subsequent historiography, while the third piece had numerous imitation and recycling.
On the margin: Found that "Action of the great war" by Grabianka could not be completed before 1719, because it referred to the Russian translation of the Huebner's work, published in 1719.
7. Found that during the 18 – 1 half 19th century Grabianka's story was corrupting with new and new fantasies of later authors.
8. The greatest merit in the criticism of Báthory's (and with it Terekhtemyriv) legends and ascertain its origin belongs A. Storozhenko (1904).
9. Next "scientific" historiography disregard the right conclusions of Storozhenko and continues to repeat disproved legend. Therefore there was a need in my work, where most conclusions by A. Storozhenko found confirmation and further elaboration.
Falsed universal Báthory – Khmelnytsky
1. Found that there were three attempts to fraud "S. Báthory's charter for the Cossacks". In 1715 A. Tripolski forged (presumably on the basis of Piasecki's Chronicle) "the S. Báthory's chart on Terekhtemyriv", which was recognized in 1717 by the Sejm valid. In 1751 Cossacks forged "universal Báthory – Khmelnytsky" (abbreviated UBKh), which was not recognized by the Russian government. In the 1820s, the author of "History of Rusy" included in his work a third fictional S. Báthory's charter for the Cossacks. It was never submitted to the government.
2. Found that all these attempts are common side branches of Báthory's (Terekhtemyriv) legend.
As Zaporizhia "universal" best known, it examined in detail in the work.
3. Found that the Russian government in 1743 – 1746 demanded Cossacks to provide written documents on those lands which they possessed; Cossacks had no such documents and written justification in this regard, including a certificate 1745, describing the boundaries. So, at this time UBKh did not exist.
4. Found that the first attempt to provide UBKh to the Russian government took place in 1752, so date of writing UBKh should assumed 1751-th year.
5. Found that the shape of UBKh does not match the form of authentic documents by B. Khmelnytsky:
- There are no words "His Tsar's Majesty" on the title of Hetman, which is nessessary part of title from 1654;
- The title of Hetman contain phrase "both sides of the Dnieper", which does not found in any original Khmelnytsky's document (such title used by hetmans from I. Mazepa to K. Razumovsky);
- The address contain phrase "to masters general officers", that is not used in any original Khmelnytsky's document (general officers as a corporation at that time had not yet been formed);
- The text contain the word "dyryhovat", which is not used in any original Khmelnytsky's document (this is stationery expression of 18 cent., unknown in the 17th century). Used the terms "Ukrainian Army", "Ukrainian people", "Zaporozhian Host and Ukrainian" which are not used in any original Khmelnytsky's document;
- There is no verb "given" in publisher's imprint, and place of issue of the document set after the date. Both features contradict form of publisher's imprint in authentic Khmelnytsky's documents;
- There is no signature of hetman, which is obligatory in original Khmelnytsky's documents and constantly corresponded during their copying.
All these formal violations completely exclude the possibility of UBKh origin from the Office of Bohdan Khmelnytsky. However, the overall structure of the document matches the shape of hetman universals.
On the margin: Established three forms of titles of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, depending on the political situation.
On the margin: Defined 4 types of Khmelnytsky's documents addressing, use of different types of I associate with persons of officers who writed documents.
On the margin: Defined 6 types of publisher's imprint for Bogdan Khmelnytsky's documents.
6. Found that the text of "S. Báthory's charter", included in the UBKh, have not even a remote resemblance to the authentic records of the king. The author of UBKh never seen any royal charter.
7. Found that the sources for writing UBKh had some hetman universal, reference of 1745, Russian-Turkish delimitations in 1740 and 1742, the decision of the Diet in 1717 with reference to the S. Báthory's charter and historical work of G.Grabianka (or "Short description of Little Russia", based on the book by Grabianka).
8. Approval of the King's charter by the servant is absurd and original documents Bogdan Khmelnytsky does not contain any such approval.
9. Historical realities of UBKh inconsistent as for times of S. Báthory, and for times of B. Khmelnytsky and meet only the mid-18th century:
- "Koshovyj Damian Barabash" is fictional person, forged by author of UBKh after Grabianka's mention (1658); at the time of S. Báthory koshovyj not exist;
- "Hetman Jakiv Bohdan" is fictional person, forged by author of UBKh based on references of Grabianka (1575);
- "Hetman Pretslav Lyantskoronsky" borrowed by author of UBKh from Grabianka unchanged;
- Nogai moved into the northern Black Sea coast in the 1st third of the 18th century. So the expression "Nogai steppe" relevant to the mid-18th century and could not be taken at 16 – 17 cent.
- Border of cossack land in UBKh coincide with the actual border of their possessions stated by the Russian-Turkish delimitations 1740 and 1742, which is particularly evident when applying them on the map.
10. Written in a this manner universal (I assume that the author could be P.Kalnyshevsky) during 1752 – 1775 at least 6 times fed to the various government bodies of Russia. We know of at least 13 copies of UBKh – they are all written in a specified period of time. We also know of at least 11 references to the UBKh in the documentation, they all belong to the same period of time.
11. The Russian government had never recognized the validity of UBKh as the actual document. The last time in 1775 an opinion on UBKh wrote historian G. F. Miller, who recognized it falsified.
12. Critical reasoning of G. F. Miller were developed by A. Storozhenko (1904), who correctly pointed out the dependence of UBKh on Grabianka's record.
13. Despite the fact that fraud of UBKh were conclusively proven by these works, in modern historiography, especially in local history, this "document" continued use as authority, and therefore my wordy and detailed critique of UBKh seems timely.
Mapping of Terekhtemyriv
On the margin: There are three traditions images Dnieper River in European cartography, initiated by B. Wapowski (1526), W. Grodecki (1558) and G. Beauplan (1648).
1. Found that the maps of the first traditions does not contain image of Terekhtemyriv. Maps of second traditions coexisted with maps of the first one in 2 half 16 – 17 cent. In the 18th century they completely replaced the maps of third tradition.
2. Found that Terekhtemyriv first appeared on the map of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania by T. Makowski – N. Radziwill in 1613 (it belongs to the second tradition). A characteristic error in this map is designation "monastery", located on the right bank of the Dnieper River below the mouth Tyasmyn. This is undoubtedly image of Terekhtemyriv monastery in the wrong place.
3. T. Makowski's map was popularized by inclusion of Dutch atlases of the 17th century. Information transferred from it to other maps, which shows the Dnieper, in particular on the maps of Little Tartary.
4. Proper image of Terekhtemyriv and monastery given on the map of Dnieper by G. Beauplan (1639), drawed after his personal observations. This map was printed in the atlas by J. Blaeuw in 1662 and in 18 cent. correct information of Beauplan displaces false information of Makowski.
5. Terekhtemyriv can be seen in almost all general maps, which shows the middle Dnieper: the maps of Ukraine, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the European part of the Russian Empire, Taurica (or Little Tartary), maps of the Dnieper. This indicates a significant weight afforded to this item by cartographers in 17 – 18 cent.
6. In the 19th century Terekhtemyriv disappears from the general maps and displayed only on large-scale maps of the Kyiv region, indicating a decrease in its value at this time.
7. 17-cent. maps can unequivocally state that Terekhtemyriv monastery located in the modern village Monastyrok, but not in the Terekhtemyriv, that depicted separately upstream of the monastery.