HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES - See also - Harvard University

LETTERS OF BOHDAN KHMEL'NYTS'KYI 219the renowned historian Ivan Kryp'^akevych (1886-1967) and his colleagueIvan Butych. 5Even though they did not succeed in findingevery document issued by the chancery of the Zaporozhian Armyunder the Cossack hetman's signature, nevertheless they made asignificant contribution to historical study, deservedly greeted withpraise by a worldwide community of scholars.Kryp"iakevych and Butych were the first to admit that their collectionwas incomplete. 6 They also expressed hope that over time additionaloriginals or copies of Khmel'nyts'kyi's documents would befound. They did not have to wait long for that to happen. In 1963Zbigniew Wójcik published Khmel'nyts'kyi's manifesto directed toColonel Ivan Nechai (1656). 7Three years later three letters of theCossack hetman addressed to János Kemény (1648, 1655-56) andtwo to Ferenc Bethlen (1649-50) appeared in print in ArkhivyUkrainy} In 1970, a manifesto of Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi guaranteeingthe safety of the city of Slutsk (1656) was published in Ukrains'kyiistorychnyi zhurnal. 9In 1978, Łucja Częścik announced the discoveryof an "unknown" letter of Khmel'nyts'kyi, which was actually aforgery that had already been published. 10 Already in 1969 L. Z.5Ivan Kryp"iakevych and Ivan Butych, Dokumenty Bohdana Khmel'nyts'koho,1648-1657 (hereafter Dokumenty) (Kiev, 1961).6Unfortunately, they deliberately excluded two documents. Their arguments thatthese were fabricated are unconvincing. For more details, see Zbigniew Wójcik'sreview of Dokumenty in Kwartalnik Historyczny 70 (1963): 992.7Wójcik's review of Dokumenty in Kwartalnik Historyczny 70 (1963): 993.8I. Butych, "Do istorii ukrains'ko-transil'vans'kykh vzaiemyn (1648-1656 rr.),"Arkhivy Ukrainy, 1966, no. 3, pp. 62-71.9A. P. Hrytskevych, "Universal Bohdana Khmel'nyts'koho mistu Sluts'ku(1656 r.)," Ukrains'kyi istorychnyi zhurnal, 1970, no. 12, pp. 92-93.10In her Sejm warszawski w 1649/50 roku (Wrocław, 1978), Łucja Częścik statesthat Zbigniew Wójcik, in his review of Dokumenty, failed to indicate thatKryp'^akevych and Butych left out Khmel'nyts'kyi's letter to Jan Kazimierz, dated1 January 1650. Noting that she has found copies of this letter in MS 934 (BibliotekaNarodowa, Biblioteka Ordynacji Zamojskich, Warsaw) and in MS 1657(Muzeum Narodowe, Biblioteka Czartoryskich, Cracow), she cites it extensivelyand bases her conclusion, accepting Khmel'nyts'kyi's "confession" and his apparentsupport for his enemies, on it. The letter's authenticity is certain, she claims,because its text and that of the instruction issued by Khmel'nyts'kyi to the Cossackenvoys in 1649 and addressed to the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies containalmost identically worded passages (Sejm warszawski, pp. 10-11, 121-22).Unfortunately, Czescik's remarks and evaluations are inaccurate and misleading,for the following reasons:(1) While the copy of this letter in MS 943, pp. 140-43, is dated 1 January 1650,the copy in MS 1657, pp. 214-15 (old pagination), pp. 136-37 (new pagination),bears the date 2 January 1650.