Academic literature on the topic 'Pereyaslav, Treaty of, 1654'

Summary. The purpose of the study is to research the interpretations of the Ukrainian-Moscow treaty of 1654 in the works of Polish historians of the first half of the twentieth century; study the approaches of scientists to identify the reasons for the mutual understanding of the Ukrainian Cossacks with the tsarist authorities; analyze the peculiarities of the study by Polish scholars of the history of the relations of the Hetman’s Chancellery of B. Khmelnytsky with Moscow; consider the specifics of historians’ vision of the circumstances of concluding the agreement in Pereyaslav and Moscow as well as the course of negotiations between the parties and their implementation; study the researchers’ assessments of the significance of the Ukrainian-Moscow agreement in the history of Ukraine, Tsardom of Muscovy and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The research methodology is based on the general scientific principles of objectivity, historicism, scientific pluralism and reliance on historical sources. General scientific (analysis, synthesis, comparison) and special-historical (historical-genetic, historical-typological, problem-chronological, historical-systemic) methods have been used in the work. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the analysis of a wide range of historiographical sources that reflect the interpretations of Polish scholars of the first half of the twentieth century history of the conclusion of the Ukrainian-Moscow treaty of 1654. The peculiarities of the historians’ approaches to the causes of the union between the Cossacks and Moscow and the circumstances of its conclusion are particularly studied. The ideological influences of historical schools and political concepts on the assessments of scholars of the Pereyaslav agreement and bereznevi statti (March articles) have been analyzed. Conclusions. Polish historians of the first half of the twentieth century considered 1654 a milestone in the fate of Ukraine and one of the most important in the history of Poland. It was from the Cossack-Moscow treaty that they deduced the beginning of the rejection of the eastern lands of the Commonwealth in favor of Russia. Scholars saw the causes of these fateful events in the significant depletion of the Ukrainian uprising. As another reason, they also pointed to the complication of the international situation of the Cossacks due to frustration with the Turkish protection and the dual role of assistance to the Crimean Khanate. Polish scholars have drawn attention to the long history of Cossack-Moscow relations since the uprisings of the first half of the seventeenth century. However, they also pointed to Moscow’s unpreparedness for the war against the Commonwealth and its indecision. In their interpretations of Cossack-Moscow relations during the national liberation war Polish historians emphasized the parties’ differing views on the terms of the union. Thus, the scholars indicated that B. Khmelnytsky understood the agreement as a military understanding directed against Poland, where there was no talk of any restriction of Ukraine’s broad autonomy. Instead, the tsarist government understood the treaty as a simple incorporation of Ukrainian lands. This, in turn, as scientists have pointed out, it has caused many sharp misunderstandings. Among the most irritating researchers named the issue of financing the Cossack register and the disagreement of the Ukrainian clergy with the attempts of the Moscow Patriarchate to absorb its church structure. Thus, in the vision of Polish historians of the first half of the twentieth century, the Ukrainian-Moscow union was perceived as hopeless and even utterly dangerous for the very existence of the Ukrainian people.

The publication deals with the widespread use by the Russian Empire of the Ukrainian people’s armed forces in its wars of conquest after the 1654 Pereyaslav Council. In particular, given are the facts of the Ukrainian Cossacks’ decisive participation in the assaults of Azov in 1696 and Izmail in 1790. How individual regiments of Cossack troops were involved in this process is reported on the example of combat of each Cossack of the Chernihiv Regiment’s Sosnytsia Company.

Position, values, activity of the highest Orthodox (black) clergy, monasteries, monasticism in the era of numerous interstate wars, Cossack uprisings of the 20 - 30s of the 18th century, National Liberation War of 1648 - 1654, Pereyaslav council, and its succession that coincided with dramatic transformations on the European continent, a profound change of borders in Central and Eastern Europe, in the light of the present factual completeness and the possibility of scientific objective assessments, prove to be complex, multi-vector, and often synchronous with many sociopolitical processes and diplomatic movements and, in general, far from the given unambiguous, straightforward or spiral "procedural", which the position of the Orthodox Church, monasteries or monks in the national liberation competitions in the Ukrainian lands. until recently.

Over the centuries, the truth about the formation of the Ukrainian language, which was methodically and severely supplanted from various state and public insti-tutions, was strictly concealed. And now, in the age of spiritual and national revival, we have more and more opportunities to refl ect impartially and prudently on many pages of our history, to erase the false luster imposed by the totalitarian system.In this context, a special place is occupied by the collaborative work of the great son of the Ukrainian people Ivan Ohiienko on the development of the Ukrainian literary language in the most dramatic period of the Ukrainian State, which is the «Moscow Age» (1654-1798).Based on this, we can say with confi dence that the topic of the article raised by the author is quite relevant.The author of our article draws our attention to the fact that Ivan Ohiienko, on the basis of historical facts with reference to primary sources, which he used, researched in detail and analyzed the formation of the Ukrainian literary language. The author notes that his historical work «History of the Ukrainian literary lan-guage» Ivan Ohiienko divided into a number of periods, one of which is the period of formation of the Ukrainian literary language in the post-Pereyaslav period. It was from this period (1654) after the accession of Ukraine to Moscow that the development of the Ukrainian literary language began to be oppressed, and Moscow began to destroy the Ukrainian word and Ukrainian culture. At the same time, the author of the article, revealing the content of Ivan Ohiienko’s scientifi c work, draws our attention to the fact that it is during this period that censorship of the Ukrainian word is intensifying. The Ukrainian language was especially oppressed during the reigns of Tsar Peter I and Catherine II.The author of the article also draws our attention to the statement of Ivan Ohiienko that the fate of the Ukrainian literary language began to change only in the XVIII century (it began to be created on its ancient basis).In general, the author of the article analyzed in detail and revealed the main components (components) of this, without exaggeration, valuable scientifi c work of Ivan Ohiienko, which reveals the historical truth about the formation and development of the Ukrainian literary language. Therefore, we believe that the article has the right to be approved and can be published as a scientifi c and methodological work.

The article is devoted to a retrospective analysis of the peculiarities of separatist conflict in Ukraine. The author connects the appearance of each feature of the separatism conflict with the level of socio-economic, political and spiritual development at which Ukrainians were at one or another time in their history. Since the almost 200-year stay of Russian (Ukrainian) lands in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania by the author (as well as mostly domestic researchers) is not seen as an invasion of a foreign horde, but as a "gathering of Russian lands" from the Tatar yoke of the Golden Horde, coinciding with interests of Ukrainians, so they did not show separatist sentiments towards Lithuanian princes. However, the subsequent socio-political changes associated with the loss of remnants of state autonomy in the Ukrainian lands during the rule of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and especially after the "reunification" of Ukraine and Russia led to not only separatist tendencies but also separatism as it is. Because after the signing of a conditionally combined series of documents called the Pereyaslav Agreement in 1654, many magnates of the Ukrainian clergy, a number of representatives of the Ukrainian nobility and Cossack officers and even part of the regiments of the Hetmanate showed separatism and refused to swear allegiance to the Moscow tsar. This step was supported by the vast majority of the Ukrainian population - the peasants, who were not sworn in at all. Ukrainians also showed frequent separatist sentiments during the Soviet era. The most obvious in this context were Ukrainian dissidents, who laid the first bricks in the foundation of Ukrainian state independence. After Ukraine's independence, the peculiarities of separatist conflict, although due to somewhat modified reasons related to the polyethnic and multi-religious composition of the country's population and total support for separatist sentiments among some Russian-speaking citizens on the part of Russia, remain unchanged. Ukraine, using for this or that kind of (secession, irredentism, enosis or devolution) separatism. The peculiarity of the use of each type of separatism in Ukraine is that they are all used with Russian utensils. It is about Russia's occupation of Crimea and ORDLO with the use of "green men" in the first case, and Russian-Ukrainian war in the second, and separatist-minded Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens, who are called to hide Russia's true intentions on the way to its expansion into Ukraine.

Summary. The purpose of the research is to study the depiction of the events of the Cossack-Polish war of 1652–1653 in the works of the Polish historians of the late 19th century till 1939, and in particular, the battles of Batoh, Zhvanets and Zhvanets Peace Treaty; to find out the peculiarities of scientific approaches and interpretations by researchers of historical events and the influences on them of the intellectual discourse of the epoch in which scientists lived and worked; to identify the specifics of scientists’ interpretations of the facts of the past through the prism of their political sympathies and belonging to various historical schools and trends; to analyze the diversity of scientists’ approaches to the causes and consequences of battles and attempts to establish understanding between the parties to the conflict; to consider general historians’ assessments of the significance of the events of 1652–1653 in the fate of the Polish and Ukrainian peoples. The methodology of the research is based on the general scientific principles of objectivity, historicism, objectivism, scientific pluralism, systematics and reliance on historical sources. Both general scientific (analysis, synthesis, induction and deduction, comparison) and special-historical methods were used in the work: historical-genetic, historical-comparative, problem-chronological, historical-systematic ones etc. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the fact that it was the first to study the image of the events of the Polish-Cossack wars of 1652–1653 in Polish historiography of the late 19th century till 1939 on the basis of a significant set of historiographical sources. The peculiarities of ideological influences of political concepts and historical schools on the assessments of Polish scientists of the battles near Batoh and Zhvanets, Zhvanets Peace Treaty were studied in the research as well. Conclusions. Polish historians of the late 19th century – 1939 saw the cause of the new Polish-Cossack war of 1652 in the unresolved conflict during the Brest campaign, when the military victory of the crown armies was lost due to aristocratic anarchy and the flexibility of Polish commanders during negotiations at Bila Tserkva. Researchers believed that the difficult situation of B. Khmelnytsky after the defeat in 1651 pushed him to start a new round of war. Scholars exposed the Battle of Batoh itself as one of the greatest national tragedies of the Polish people and described these events in mythologized images. Special emphasis was placed on the depiction of the execution of captured Polish soldiers by Cossacks and Tatars, which emphasized the barbaric nature of the Cossacks. Scholars saw the very defeat of the crown troops as evidence of the problems of the society of the Commonwealth, which was ruled by aristocratic anarchy. For Polish scholars, the battle of Batoh became a symbol of the transition of the Polish-Ukrainian confrontation to a new stage, characterized by a special intransigence of the parties, and was a cornerstone in the destruction of the ancient brotherhood of both peoples. In the bloody finale of the campaign of 1652, scholars saw the reason for the conclusion of the Ukrainian-Moscow Agreement of 1654, because after the Battle of Batoh a peaceful settlement of relations between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Cossacks was no longer possible. The campaign of Zhvanets of 1653 was studied by many Polish historians in the context of the Moldavian campaigns of the crown and Cossack troops and it was considered to have been their finale. In assessing the significance of the Battle of Zhvanets, Polish researchers tended to define it as a hopeless forced confrontation between the hostile parties, who were aware of their futile chances for a final victory in this armed confrontation. Thus, scholars saw the campaign of Zhvanets as a failure for both sides of the conflict, which only exacerbated the depletion of their human and material resources. Similarly, scholars viewed Zhvanets Peace Treaty as a mere temporary agreement that was to suspend the military campaign of 1653 and had no prospect of continuing it to truly resolve the differences between the Ukrainian and Polish peoples. According to scholars, the treaty was forced by agreements with the Tatars for King John Casimir, while for B. Khmelnytsky it was fictitious because of his already reached agreement with Moscow. Historians have paid attention to the gradual strengthening of the role of the Crimean Khan as an arbiter in relations between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Ukrainian Cossacks during 1652–1653, as well as the growth of his role in the geopolitical structure of Central and Eastern Europe.

[Bonde's instructions are dated 14 June 1655, and were supplemented by secret instructions dated 15 June.By the former, he was ordered, in general, to complete what had been left unsettled in Whitelocke's treaty of 1654; was to do everything possible to ensure that commerce should be free from interruption; to draw up a list of contraband goods which should exclude copper, iron, tar, grain and timber, but should include all weapons of war, soldiers, horses and cloth; to reach agreement on a form of sea-pass; to seek access to English possessions in America, and to the herring and cod fisheries. He was further to try to divert English trade to Russia from Archangel to the Baltic harbours under Swedish control, the duties on such trade not to exceed 2%; to offer permission for customs-free deposit of Russian goods in Ingria or Livonia, with the right to sell them retail; and to emphasize England's obligation, in terms of the Whitelocke treaty, to assist Charles X against any disturbers of the trade in the Baltic or North Sea, in view of the fact that war with Poland was imminent.

[Coyet's instruction for his mission to England was dated 25 November 1654. The immediate cause which prompted his despatch was a rumour that Cromwell had expressed surprise that he had not been invited to mediate between Sweden and Poland—an idea which Charles X was anxious to scotch before it was formally raised. His instruction ordered him to settle matters which had been left for future decision in Whitelocke's treaty of Uppsala of 1654: compensation for loss and damage at the hands of English privateers; the thorny questions of contraband and sea-passes. He was also to raise—but not to decide, pending the arrival of Christer Bonde as ambassador extraordinary—a number of additional points, most of which were not new: Swedish participation in the herring fishery off the English and Scottish coasts; a possible English staple somewhere in the Swedish dominions; the diversion of England's Russia trade to Swedish ports, where the duty was only 2%; and in addition the possibility of opening the trade to Barbados and America to Swedish vessels in exchange for a liberty to trade with Livonia and Ingria, with a hint that it might be to England's advantage if Sweden should obtain possession of Polish Prussia.

O ESTADO CONFESSIONAL E A CIDADANIA NO IPÉRIO LUSO-BRASILEIRO: OS DISPOSITIVOS PENAIS DO TRATADO DE 1810 FACE À CONSTITUIÇÃO DE 1822 CONFESSIONAL STATE AND CITIZENSHIP IN THE LUSO-BRASILIAN EMPIRE: THE CRIMINAL RULES OF THE TREATY OF 1810 IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1822 Jairdilson da Paz Silva* RESUMO: A discussão que se gerou entre juristas e políticos na época dos trabalhos constituintes deixava claro que seria impossível deduzir do texto constitucional as noções claras de quem era cidadão, estrangeiro ou outra classe de indivíduos, que residiam dentro das fronteiras do império. Principalmente pelo simples fato de que a natureza e a conotação civilizacional do conceito de cidadania do século XIX eram demasiado elitistas para uma real inclusão. Entretanto, o modelo constitucional em matéria de confesionalidade havia sido o modelo gaditano. Ainda assim, o Tratado de Amizade e Aliança entre Portugal e Grã-Bretanha garantia que as isenções já pactuadas e previstas no Tratado firmado em 1654 seguiriam valendo. Ademais, aquele Tratado contava com uma parte penal, onde eram descritas as infrações em matéria religiosa e as respectivas penas a serem aplicadas, de acordo o caso. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Constituição de 1822. Cidadania. Confessionalidade. Direito Penal. Tratados de 1810. ABSTRACT: The discussion at the time of the constituent work made it clear that it would be impossible to deduce from the constitutional text clear notions of who was the citizen, the foreigner or any another class of individuals residing within the borders of the empire. This impossibility was observed mainly due to the simple fact that the nature and the civilizational connotation of citizenship in the nineteenth century were too elitist for real inclusion. Therefore, the constitutional model that inspired the confessional regulation had been the Constitution of Cadiz. Despite these facts, the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance between Portugal and Britain guaranteed that the exemptions already agreed in the Treaty signed in 1654 were still in force. Moreover, that treaty had a section that regulated criminal issues, in which infringements on religious matters and their respective penalties, according to the case, were described. KEYWORDS: Constitution of 1822. Citizenship. Confessional. Criminal Law. Treaty of 1810. SUMÁRIO: Introdução. 1 Cidadania e critérios confessionais: a constitucionalização da soberania nacional. 1.1 A Constituição de 1822: a definição do cidadão com liberdade de consciência e a dualidade cidadã de Siéyès. 1.2 O Tratado de Amizade e Aliança entre Portugal e Grã-Bretanha: a extraterritorialidade e os dispositivos penais. 1.3 As discussões no Parlamento sobre a liberdade de consciência dos estrangeiros no gozo dos direitos de cidadãos: “contentar aos estrangeiros e contentar a religião” – a equação de difícil fórmula. Conclusão. Referências.* Pós-doutor em História do Direito Constitucional pela Universidad de Salamanca, Espanha. Doutor em História do Direito Constitucional pela Universidad de Salamanca, Espanha. Mestre pela Università Degli Studio di Milano e Università Degli Studio di Messina, Itália. Mestre pela Universidad Internacional de Andalucia e Universidad de Huelva, Espanha. Pós-graduado em Direitos Humanos pela Universidad de Salamanca, Espanha. Licenciado em História pela Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA).

The English government struggled for thirty years to receive restitution for the incident they had come to know as the Amboyna Massacre. This chapter traces the repercussions in the Indian Ocean and especially in Europe. In England, the English traders who had survived the conspiracy trial became the key witnesses for the East India Company. This chapter explores how these men created new lives for themselves in the wake of the trial. A central component to the success of the East India Company in securing restitution was the publication of old and new Amboyna pamphlets, as well as new illustrations, especially during the 1650s and the First Anglo-Dutch War. The Treaty of Westminster resolved all outstanding claims in 1654, but the animosities of the Amboyna crisis ensured that the English remained dissatisfied with a financial settlement alone and still looked for justice.

Despite the resolution in the Treaty of Westminster (1654), the Amboyna massacre became entrenched in English culture as a familiar cultural touchstone. Three further wars with the Dutch led to new Amboyna pamphlets. Amboyna also became part of internal political disputes in which Tories wrote Amboyna pamphlets to attack Whig rivals. In a wide-ranging exploration of multiple genres of popular and print culture, including plays, advice manuals, fiction, and library catalogues, this chapter analyzes the many ways in which Amboyna became domesticated in English culture. By the end of the seventeenth century it had shed its political significance as a symbol of ingratitude and instead became a consummate tale of cruelty. It also endured as a tale of unrequited injury. British authors such as Dryden, Defoe, and Swift were part of this process. By the end of the eighteenth century, with a final True Relation, it had become a legend.