RESUME

The treaty of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnitsky with the Muscovite Tsar Alexey Mikhaylovich in 1654 established state relations for the first time between the Zaporozhian Host and the Kingdom of Moscow, in effect between Ukraine and Muscovy, both of different character, the Kozak Republic and the Muscovian absolute monarchy of eastern-asiatic type, between two distinct people in origin, culture, customs and language.

The treaty consisted of three parts, namely, a draft of the treaty as proposed by Hetman Bohdan Khmelnitsky in conference with his advisers in Chyhyryn, consisting of 23 Articles; the Tsarist charter, issued in Moscow March 27, 1654; and the Act agreed upon, also formulated in Moscow on the same date, consisting of eleven Articles.

Dispatched to Moscow by envoys of Hetman Khmelnitsky his draft of the Treaty was translated into Muscovian language, while two others were drawn up by the Posolsky Prykaz (Foreign Office), then translated into the “Byelorussian,” stamped with the Imperial Seal, and delivered to the envoys of Hetman Khmelnitsky, Samiylo Bohdanovich and Paul Tetera on March 27, 1654. To this day the original copy of these Acts has never been uncovered. A copy of them in Russian language appears in the XIXth century in “Polnoye Sobranye Zakonov Rossiyskoy Imperyi,” Volume I, as well as in other Russian records. Records of the negotiations leading to the treaty as notated by the Muscovian representatives appear only in the “Stateynykh Spyskakh,” but their authenticity is of doubtful nature. They appear also in the protocols of the Posolsky Prykaz.

There is no record known to be in existence, however, of the 23 Articles of the Treaty prepared in Chyhyryn.

Following this introductory explanations the author in parts 1-3 gives a brief summary of the situation in Ukraine just before the conclusion of the Treaty of 1654, about the arrival of the Muscovian delegation to Ukraine, about the first talks between Khmelnitsky and his advisers with the Tsarist envoy the Boyar Buturlyn in Pereyaslav, about the General Kozak Assembly (Rada) on January 8, 1654, followed by the oath of “allegiance,” as well as about the conflict which then took place between Khmelnitsky and the Tsarist envoys evoked by his demand that the latter swear in the name of the Tsar that he would confirm the “rights and freedom” of Ukraine, about the investiture of Khmelnitsky with the title of Hetman, and finally about the departure of the Moscow envoys to Kiev then on to Moscow, and of the Hetman to Chyhyryn.

The author then continues with an analysis of the proposed 23 articles of the Treaty submitted in Chyhyryn, its legal value, and comes to the conclusion that in essence the Treaty provided for the establishment of mutual relations between Ukraine and Muscovy founded on established agreements of that period of “protection and protectorate” of the stronger power over the weaker one, with signs of nominally vassal dependence (the oath of “fealty,” the payment of tribute, etc.).

In the following parts (4-5), the author, on the basis of the official minutes, as recorded in the Posolsky Prykaz, sumarizes the negotiations in Moscow and the ratification by the Tsar of the conditions upon which the draft of the Treaty was to be drawn. These negotiations ended with the submission of the Tsar’s patent to Hetman Khmelnitsky and the Zaporozhian Host and the Treaty with its eleven Articles. In both these two Acts and in the Tsarist ukazes there appeared all the conditions upon which the Treaty was based. Written in Muscovian and translated in Moscow into the “Byelorussian” language, and dated March 27, 1654 the Acts were delivered to Samiylo Bohdanovich and Paul Tetera, representing Hetman Khmelnitsky.

Щ

In parts 6 and 7 the author gives a detailed analysis ₀f these Acts in relation to their contents, legality, and reaches the conclusion that as a result of the Treaty of 1654 the Tsar was entitled to receive a certain tribute from Ukraine and also to control to an extent the relations of the Hetman with foreign countries. All other sovereign rights of the Ukrainian nation were to be retained by its head, the Hetman, as well as its legislative, administrative and judicial organs. Having accepted the Muscovian protectorate, Ukraine retained by the Treaty its independence, separate from that of Muscovy, _with its own defined national borders, and conducted its relations with Muscovy through the regular diplomatic channels. Hetman Khmelnitsky conducted foreign relations with other countries himself, although Moscow had different ideas in the matter. It regarded the treaty as a “petition” of Hetman Khmelnitsky and the, “grant” of that petition by the self-titled “Tsar of the Great and Little Russia,” and the “Grand Duke of the Kievan and Chernihiv Principalities.” As for the neighboring countries they regarded the Pereyaslav Treaty of 1654 in the same light as did Hetman Khmelnitsky himself and continued to maintain diplomatic relations with Ukraine as an independent nation under protection of the Muscovian Tsar.

Finally the author of this work reviews the views of Russian and Ukrainian historians and jurists concerning the Treaty.

In the Second Part of the book the author includes a study of the Treaty of Pereyaslav as it was reformulated in 1659. The reason for the latter was the change in the situation brought about by the death of Hetman Khmelnitsky. The 1654 Treaty provided that in the event of the death of the Hetman, the new Hetman would have to swear allegiance to the Tsar. Hetman Ivan Vyhovsky, who was elected in 1657, successor to the late Hetman Khmelnitsky, affirmed under oath the binding power upon him of the 1654 Treaty.

Articles of Articles of B. Khmelnitsky,” an entirely new treaty composed of 14 instead of 11 articles, in which the Tsar was titled as the ruler of ‘‘Great Russia, Little Russia and White Russia” and which contained provisions forbiding the new Hetman to conduct independently foreign relations with other countries, made the Kievan Ukrainian Orthodox Metropolitan subject to the ecclesiastical authority to the Moscow Patriarch. There were other minor changes and additions in the new treaty as well. Hetman Yuriy protested strongly against this perversion of the 1654 Treaty but the Tsar refused to recognize the legality of the original treaty, on the ground that Hetman Yuriy and the Kozak General Council had affirmed the fabricated new treaty by swearing on it their allegiance at the General Council meeting in Pereyaslav.

Since that time the falsified Treaty of 1659 began to be considered as the authentic Treaty of 1654 which Hetman B. Khmelnitsky had concluded with the Tsar, and served as a basis of the investure into office of the Hetmans. It was introduced into the “Svod Zakonov Rossiyskoy Imperyi,” dated March 17, 1659. Some historians, beginning with H. Karpov, editor of volume X of the “Arkhiv Youho-Zapadnoy Rossiyi,” regarded the 1659 Treaty as the same as the Treaty 1654; others considered the 1654 Treaty as the true one which had been changed while B. Khmelnitsky was still alive, but did not come forward with the proper historic evidence. Other researchers, including the author of this book, have come forward with more than plenty historical evidence of the authenticity of the Treaty of Pereyaslav of 1654, which the Tsar perverted in 1659 in order to annul the national and political rights of Ukraine.