Observations on the spread of information about Terekhtemyriv in European and later in Ukrainian literature in 17 – 1 half 19th century leads to the following conclusions.
1. The main source of this information was P.Pyasecki's Chronicle (1645), other work either dependent on it, or had no significant effect on the historiography of the subject.
2. In the chronicle P. Piasecki Terekhtemyriv mentioned twice – in the context of fiction "Báthory's legend" tied to the reign of S. Báthory, and in the context of the Diet of Warsaw 1638 (this record is reliable).
3. In the process of information dissemination significant record of 1638 dropped out of circulation, while Báthory's legend firmly rooted and overgrown with new details, more and more fantastic.
4. In Ukrainian historiography Báthory's legend passed four stages:
4.1. The first phase (1st half 18th c.) we have a more or less thorough transfers from older European books. The main contribution of S.Báthory in this version – appointment of Cossack Hetman. An exception is a special look S.Myshetsky (1740), which had no effect on subsequent literature.
4.2. In the second phase (1764 – 1822 years) Legend enriched with fiction by P. Simonovsky at which the Cossack hetman had before Báthory, who only agreed to their existence.
4.3. In the third stage (since 1820's) version of the "History of Rusy" became the dominant, in which fantasy replaced those small pieces of real history that occurred in previous versions of legend. Among these rejected pieces was the mention of Terekhtemyriv.
4.4. In the fourth phase (since 1840's) basic Terekhtemyriv legend complicated by the publication and "using" falsified diplomas S.Báthory – B.Khmelnytsky. Despite the fact that in 1846 were published destroying critical remarks by G. F. Miller (1775) on this fraud, it did not influence the subsequent historiography, which to this day continues to operate this falsed diploma.
It is an abstract of the chapter. For the full text see please ukrainian version.