M.Zharkikh's personal site logo
Mail to site
Print version
News (RSS)
History / Monographs / Terekhtemyriv / Falsed universal Bathory Khmelnytsky / Conclusions

Terekhtemyriv

Falsed universal Bathory Khmelnytsky

Conclusions

Nicholas Zharkikh

Now let us summarize the analysis performed on universal Báthory Khmelnytsky (UBKh).

1. Established that there are at least 13 copies of UBKh and at least 11 references to it in the documentation. All copies and notes belongs to the period from 1752 to 1775.

2. Established that before 1746 including Zaporizhia Forces had not in the hands UBKh and for the question of written documents reported the absence of them.

3. Established that the sources for the compilation of UBKh was a hetman universal, certificate of 1745, delimitations of 1740 and 1742, a historic work of Grabianka (or "Short description of Little Russia") and the Constitution of the Polish Sejm in 1717.

The large number of written sources can reject the hypothesis that verbal memory was used (memory was recorded in certificate of 1745).

4. Established that date of "S. Báthory's diploma" in various copies varies: 1575, 1576, 1577 years. The author of UBKh did not seen any chart of Polish kings. Therefore UBKh does not contain titulature of King.

5. Established that UBKh contains numerous violations of forms characteristic of universal Bohdan Khmelnytsky, so that it in no way can refer to be Khmelnytsky's document.

6. Established that both in historical realities, and in the language of UBKh are many elements that point to the middle of the 18th century. They are anachronistic for the 16th or 17th century. The most important of these realities is the outline border Zaporizhia, which corresponds to the actual ownership of the Cossacks in the mid-18th century.

7. Established that leadership of Zaporizhia Sich at least six times had applied UBKh to the various government bodies. Those bodies rejected it constantly and expressed various doubts about its authenticity.

8. Established that the largest contribution to critical examination of UBKh made Gerhard Miller (1775) and Andrew Storozhenko (1904). Their work gave sufficient grounds for declaring UBKh forgery.

9. Established that historiography of 19 21 centuries did not take this fair criticism and continues to produce new and new ideas on the origins and realities of UBKh.

10. Established that UBKh is not document of 16 or 17 cent. It is a document of mid-18th century. It should be used to highlight the political circumstances of the mid-18th century and Cossacks ideas of those time about their own past.

So, as a result of our studies, we have answers to all questions arising in connection with false documents.

The question who forged document? Representative of the Zaporizhia managers in middle of the 18th century. Maybe Peter Kalnyshevsky.

The question when falsified document? Not earlier than 1746 and no later than 1752, most likely in 1751

The question why falsified document? To defend the rights of the Zaporozhian on the lands in front of the Russian government.

The question where was common false document? The Zaporizhia Sich and Russian offices (particularly in the Senate).

The question what value was false document? For government decisions it had no meaning, but had a major impact on historiography, which readily follows its fantasies.

Previous section | Table of content | Next section

Please this page? Help us to develop this site!

1978 2018 N.I.Zharkikh

Reprinting of articles from site are encouraged while
reference (hyperlink) to my site is provided

Site powered by

Load count : 432

Modified : 13.10.2015

If you look up the type error
on this page, please select it
by mouse and press Ctrl+Enter.