Journal articles on the topic '1648-1657'

ABSTRACT ABI-1648 (rifalazil) is a semisynthetic rifamycin with potent bactericidal activity against intracellular respiratory bacteria, including Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and a long half-life (∼60 h) and thus can be administered once weekly. We therefore tested the in vitro activities of ABI-1648, its derivatives ABI-1657 and ABI-1131, azithromycin, and levofloxacin against 10 strains of Chlamydia trachomatis and 10 recent clinical isolates of Chlamydia pneumoniae. The MICs at which 90% of the isolates were inhibited and the minimal bactericidal concentration at which 90% of the isolates were killed for ABI-1648, ABI-1657, and ABI-1131 were 0.0025 μg/ml for C. trachomatis and 0.00125 to 0.0025 μg/ml for C. pneumoniae. ABI-1648, ABI-1657, and ABI-1131 were 10- to 1,000-fold more active than azithromycin and levofloxacin.

The purpose of the article is to summarize information about extraordinary natural phenomena that were recorded on Ukrainian lands during 1648 – 1657, and to clarify their impact on social and political activity, economy and worldview of the local population. The article identifies and analyzes reports in written sources about extraordinary natural phenomena on Ukrainian lands during the Bohdan Khmelnytsky Uprising 1648 – 1657, their periodicity and impact on the socio-economic life of the early modern agrarian society is clarified. Written information on the extent of damage and territories affected by natural disasters was found. The Bohdan Khmelnytsky Uprising took place against the background of the First Climatic Minimum of the Little Ice Age. The impact of extraordinary natural phenomena on a turbulent society that found itself in the conditions of war was particularly noticeable. During 1648 – 1657, on Ukrainian lands an extreme meteorological phenomena were recorded (dry spring of 1648, unstable winter of 1652 – 1653, severe winters of 1654 – 1655 and 1655 – 1656); extraordinary optical phenomena (the appearance of a comet and mysterious signs in the sky in 1647, the eclipse of the sun on August 2, 1654, as well as unconfirmed reports of the eclipse of the moon in 1648 and the eclipse of the sun in 1653); extraordinary hydrological phenomena (floods in Halychyna and Podillya in 1649, 1651, 1656); earthquake of 1650; annual invasions of locusts 1647 – 1652; epidemics of 1648, 1650, 1651, 1652, 1657. The influence of weather conditions on the course of battles and the course of the main campaigns of the Bohdan Khmelnytsky Uprising remains underestimated by scientists. The pattern of man’s perception of extraordinary natural phenomena in early modern period was expressed in the presence of irrational and rational approaches, which, we note, were not always mutually exclusive. Thus, the irrational approach is represented by the church and folk interpretation of a natural disaster, in particular, its nature. The latter, in particular, is characterized by great variability, a mystical worldview, and an appeal to archaic magical practices. In turn, the rational approach consists in attempts at a pre-scientific interpretation of the nature and patterns of the occurrence of cataclysms.

ABSTRACT The new rifamycin derivatives KRM-1657 and KRM-1648 were evaluated for their in vitro antimicrobial activities against 44 strains ofHelicobacter pylori. Although the drugs were not very active against other gram-negative bacteria, the MICs at which 90% of isolates are inhibited for these drugs were lower (0.002 and 0.008 μg/ml, respectively) than those of amoxicillin and rifampin forH. pylori. Time-kill studies revealed that the bactericidal activities of these agents were due to cell lysis. The results presented here indicate that these new rifamycin derivatives may be useful for the eradication of H. pylori infections.

AbstractThe seventeenth century was a period of political and religious turmoil in the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania. The confessional conflicts produced martyrs whose cults consolidated the confessional boundaries of the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox, and the Greek Catholic Church. In my article, I compare three such saints: Josafat Kuntsevych (1580-1623, Greek Catholic), Afanasiy Filippovych (c. 1595–1648, Orthodox), and Andrzej Bobola (1591-1657, Roman Catholic), who were martyred in the hands of their Christian neighbours. For material, I use the hymnographical services composed for the saints. I argue that, in quest of genuine ecumenism, certain content in these services, such as exclusive concepts of the true faith and church unity, may actually induce rather than prevent hostility between the Churches.

The novel With Fire and Sword by Henry Sienkiewicz (1846–1916) is an example of the interweaving of fiction, historiography, and national collective imagination. It was written at the end of the period of Polish partition (1882–1888) and deals with events that marked the history and the collective imaginations of Poles, Ukrainians, and Jews: the history of the Khmel’nyts’kyy Uprising (1648–1657). The epic nature of these historical events already carried the seeds of a powerful and emotional narrative that lends itself to mythicization. However, the reading of this book in a later situation, the Second Polish Republic (1921–1939), led the Polish Sanacja government to withdraw it from the compulsory reading in Polish schools in 1932.This aspect of the Jędrzejewicz school reform sparked a lively debate in the Polish press, whereby historians, literature scholars, and journalists discussed the function that this book should have in the patriotic education of young Polish citizens, against the backdrop of tensions between the state and the political opposition on the issue of minorities, namely the Ukrainian minority. This discussion discloses the central place that Sienkiewicz has been given in Polish culture. At the same time, it examines the position that Polish intellectuals attribute to the Ukrainian minority in the Polish state and culture.

Review of the publishing series: Maciej Franz, red., seria Archiwum Uniwersytetu Jana Kazimierza we Lwowie (t. 1–7), Wydawnictwo DiG, Warszawa 2021–2022: 1. Jan Okołot, Rola historyczna kozactwa dońskiego w walce z Turkami i Tatarami w jego najbardziej bohaterskim okresie (1637–1642), opracowanie, wstęp naukowy, przygotowanie do druku Maciej Franz (Warszawa: Wyd. DiG, 2021), ss. 169. 2. Teodor Zagalak, Bunt Krzysztofa Kosińskiego 1591–1593, opracowanie, wstęp naukowy, przygotowanie do druku Maciej Franz (Warszawa: Wyd. DiG, 2021), ss. 167. 3. Antoni Łukaszewski, Rok 1638 w dziejach stosunków polsko-kozackich (Bunty Ostrzanina, Skidana i Huni), opracowanie, wstęp naukowy, przygotowanie do druku Maciej Franz (Warszawa: wyd. DiG, 2021), ss. 122. 4. Maria Dobrowolska, Udział szlachty w powstaniu B. Chmielnickiego (1648–1657), opracowanie, wstęp naukowy, przygotowanie do druku Maciej Franz (Warszawa: Wyd. DiG, 2021), ss. 300. 5. Eustachy Jurków, Paweł Tetera, hetman Ukrainy prawobrzeżnej w latach 1662–1665 (Rola polityczna), opracowanie, wstęp naukowy, przygotowanie do druku Maciej Franz (Warszawa: Wyd. DiG, 2021), ss. 308. 6. Franciszek Wiśmierski, Doroszenko za Sobieskiego w latach 1665–1676, opracowanie, wstęp naukowy, przygotowanie do druku Maciej Franz (Warszawa: Wyd. DiG, 2021), ss. 292. 7. Franciszek Owadiuk, O polskim hetmanie XVII wieku Mikołaju Potockim, opracowanie, wstęp naukowy, przygotowanie do druku Maciej Franz (Warszawa: Wyd. DiG, 2021), ss. 350.

The publication presents the first letter of the Cambridge School leader Henry More (1614–1687) to Rene Descartes (1596–1650), opening their short-term correspondence, which took place at the end of 1648–1649 and was interrupted due to the unexpected death of the French thinker in Sweden. The corres­pondence discusses the most important problems of physics and philosophy of the 17th century: the extension of substance, the main and secondary proper­ties of substances, the understanding of space, emptiness and atoms, the limits of the divisibility of matter, the infinity of God and the world, and, finally, the recognition of the animateness of animals and the immortality of the soul. In this discussion, H. More starts from the Neoplatonic theory of the origin and the de­velopment of the world, which is based on the principle of emanation. Starting from this theophysical idea, More tries to adapt Descartes’ doctrine of two sub­stances. The translation was made from the Latin original of the classical edi­tions of C. Clerselier [Clerselier 1657] and C. Adam and P. Tannery [AT V]. H. More’s letter is translated into Russian and published for the first time. All four letters of the English participant in the correspondence are planned for pub­lication.

This article provides a brief history of publications of the treatise of Herbert of Cherbury (1583-1648) “On Truth” (written in 1624); critical response of his contemporaries; as well as comparative analysis of the “symbols of faith” of the English thinker, his contemporary Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), Henry Bolingbroke (1678-1751), Thomas Chubb (1679-1747), and the author of the “Bible of Deism” – “Christianity as Old as the Creation” Matthew Tindal (1657-1733). One may often come across a well-established in the research opinion about the role of Herbert as the “father of Deism”. However, in recent years, this topic remains undisclosed, bringing obscurity whether Herbert of Cherbury should be considered the founder of deistic philosophy. The article also conducts detailed analysis of the criticism of the religious philosophy of deism of the English thinker, and reveals which elements of this doctrine caused a controversial response among his contemporaries. The goal of this work lies in highlighting the most substantial part of the heritage of Herbert of Cherbury, which was subsequently reflected in the religious philosophy of the adherents of deism. The article is of particularly relevance for the Russian audience, as this topic was not sufficiently covered in the Russian language.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the theoretical and methodological principles of Valerii Stepankov’s scientifi c work. He has a Doctorate Degree in Historical Sciences, Professor, head of the Department of World History at Kamianets-Podilskyi Ivan Ohiienko National University. Th e methodological ground of the research is the principles of historicism, comprehensiveness and consistency. Th e author has widely used problem-chronological, comparative and diachronic methods. Th e scientifi c novelty of the article is determined by the number of historiographical sources –individual works of the researcher that were used. Conclusions. Th e family upbringing formed in the future historian the main worldview mat- rix of moral and ethical values based on honesty, decency, diligence, responsible performance of assignments and tasks. Th e initial stage of his formation as a scientist evolved during his student years and the fi rst years of work as an assistant in the General History Department of Kamianets-Podilskyi Volodymyr Zatonskyi Pedagogical Institute (1967-1975) and was determined by the Marxist methodology of author’s research initiatives. Th e next stage (1976-1988) started aft er V. Stepankov’s acquaintance with the books of M. Hrushevsky «History of Ukraine- Rus» and V. Lypynsky «Ukraine at the Turn of 1657-1659» which was the impetus for the pro- cess of rethinking the concept of the liberation struggle of the Ukrainian people in 1648-1654. It was unfortunate period for the author, because he could not publicly present it within the socio-political conditions of that time. During the «turning decade» (1989-1998), the removal of ideological restrictions and the actualization of the problem in connection with the forma- tion of independent Ukraine created favorable conditions for the professional self-realization of Mr. V. Stepankov who became a successful scientist-innovator. Based on the statehood approach, he has formulated the concept of the National Liberation Revolution of 1648-1676. From the end of the XXth century and to the present days, he continues to deepen and expand the analytical arguments of his vision of the events of Ukrainian / national history of the middle and second half of the XVIIth century. Nowadays, V. Stepankov uses the principles of positivism and neo- positivism as the methodological basis of his research, but does not limit himself to this. He also extensively uses the tools of the «Annals» school, the «new» social history, modal biography, and psychohistory.

It is relevant for the further progress and development of Ukraine to study the ascending legal foundations that laid the foundations of the constituent power of the people as the source, bearer and sovereign subject of power. The first stage of the Ukrainian people’s sovereignty process was completed during the National Liberation War of 1648–1657 with the formation and legalization of the institutions of the Ukrainian Cossack state, which was recognized as a subject of international relations. The next stage of the sovereignty of the Ukrainian people, as asocial subject of Ukrainian state-building, began in Western Ukrainian lands with the “Spring of Nations” in 1848 and ended with the formation of its own sovereign state-the Western Ukrainian People’s Republic. In Trans-Dnieper Ukraine, this stage began at the end of the 19th century. and ended in the period of the Ukrainian national liberation struggle of 1917–1921 with the restoration of national statehood. The state sovereignty of the Ukrainian People’s Republic was realized through a dialectical combination of the right of nations to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity of the state. After the announcement by the Russian Soviet party leadership of the date of formation of the USSR on December 30, 1922, the Ukrainian SSR actually lost the opportunity to exercise the sovereign rights of the Ukrainian people and the state. During the dismantling of the Union of the SSR, the Ukrainian people used the right to self-determination, which is enshrined in the provisions of the Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine dated July 16, 1990. A detailed analysis of legal acts that regulated the issues of external and internal sovereignty and legal personality of the Ukrainian people (nation) and the state in different historical periods will make it possible to objectively assess the formality and reality of Ukraine’s sovereignty in different historical periods. Key words: Ukraine, people’s sovereignty, nation-state self-determination, people’s right to self-determination, sovereignty, Cossack-Hetman era, UNR, Directory, ZUNR,Ukrainian SSR, juridification of Ukraine’s sovereignty, normative and legal component,historical significance

This article examines the materials around François le Gouz de la Boullaye, a French gentilhomme (gentleman or minor aristocrat) from the Anjou Province of western France, who visited India twice, once in the late 1640s, and again in the mid-1660s. The result of his first visit, in which he mostly spent time in Surat and Goa, was an extended travel-narrative, the Voyages et Observations, of which two editions appeared in 1653 and 1657. On this basis, Boullaye became a fairly well-known ‘expert’ on Islamic and Indian affairs in Louis XIV’s France. Because of his reputation, he was then chosen as a member of an embassy sent to open trading relations with Safavid Iran and Mughal India in 1664 on behalf of the French Compagnie des Indes. This second visit was not a great success on account of misconceptions regarding diplomatic protocols and because of deep rivalries and divisions amongst rival French actors, including celebrated travellers like Bernier and Tavernier.

The article deals with the appearance of the image of the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III as a national hero in German journalism. There are still not many works devoted to Ferdinand III in historiography. The discussion surrounding his reign continues to highlight the weakness of imperial power during the Congress of Westphalia. The traditions of glorification of rulers were acquired in German printed publications of the middle of the 17th century pronounced national connotation. The Peace of Westphalia gave a new impetus to the development of the German national idea. Despite the emperor’s loss of some important prerogatives during the Congress of Westphalia, Ferdinand III turned on the pages of printed matter into a “German hero” who ended the Thirty Years’ War (1618—1648), who recreated the unity of the Empire and became its full head. The emperor is presented in the writings of the era as the defender of the German nation, thanks to whom the Empire was not only able to withstand thirty years of military chaos, but proved its viability and even reached a new peak. Constructing the image of a national hero, the authors addressed both the real political possibilities of the imperial power after the conclusion of the Peace of Westphalia, and the moral arsenal of virtues, which the emperor had. The ideas of his inherent patriotism and his desire to care for the Fatherland constituted the main components of the image of the ideal ruler and national hero and firmly entered the national discourse. During his lifetime, publicists turned Ferdinand III into a symbol of the German nation and laid the foundation for similar writings in subsequent eras.

AbstractUp to now Herman Becker, one of the people who lent Rembrandt money in the straitened circumstances of the last years of his life, has had a bad press as an art-dealer who owed his wealth and influence to the exploitation of artists (Notes 1, 2). It is now possible to correct this image on the basis of recent research in the Amsterdam archives. Becker was born around 1617 and the supposition that he came from Riga in Latvia is borne out by the facts that he had contacts there, that his father Willem certainly lived there between 1640 and 1650 and that the words 'of or 'to' Riga appear in some documents after his name. His commercial activities certainly go back to 1635 (note 6) and from the earliest records of him in Amsterdam in the 1640s, it is clear that he was a merchant and that he also chartered ships. At this period he further invested money in shares and engaged in a certain amount of moneylending, while he is also mentioned as his father's agent. That financially he was almost certainly in a sound osition by the end of the 1640s is clear from the fact that in 1648 he gave a surety for the merchant Gerard Pelgrom, who was in debt to the Dutch East India Company. That same year he concluded an agreement with the merchant Abraham de Visscher to sell sailcloth for him in Riga. In the 1650s Becker strengthened his financial position and again engaged in moneylending. In 1653 he made a large loan to Johannes de Renialme, an art lover and dealer, and at the time of the latter's death in 1657 his debt to Becker was even larger, while the inventory of his estate mentions nine paintings, including three by Jan Lievens and one by Philips de Koninck, which were mortgaged to Becker along with some jewelry. From the autumn of 1653 Becker spent a considerable time in Riga, but he was certainly back in Amsterdam in 1658. In 1659 he married Anna Maria Vertangen, the widow of his former business contact Gerard Pelgrom, who had died in 1657. This marriage brought Becker two large houses on Keizersgracht, where he moved in June 1659. That he was a Lutheran emerges from records of the baptisms of two of his three children at the Lutheran church in Amsterdam. His wife died shortly after the birth of theyoungest child and was buried in the Oude Kerk on 9 November 1661. By her will Becker was granted usufruct of all her property until his death, on condition that he did not remarry. This increase in his means led to a change of direction in his activities in the 1660s and a growth in the scale and scope of his moneylending. Becker's library (see Appendix I) The list of books in Becker's inventory amounts to 285 titles, a not inconsiderable library by 17th-century standards (Note 26). Their diversity indicates that, though clearly an educated man, he was not a scholar, while they were not arranged under subjects, like a scholar's library, but according to sizes. The presence of works in Latin indicates that Becker must have been educated at a Latin or grammar school, but the large number of German titles point to his coming from the influential German elite, which had long dominated the city government, trade and the guilds in Riga and part of which, like Becker, was Evangelical Lutheran by religion. Books on religion and theology formed a third of the 145 books of which the titles are given, followed by histories and chronicles, classical literature, law, poetry, medicine, physics and astronomy. Contacts with artists In the 1660s Becker continued his shipping interest, but now also invested in property, building a house next to the two others on Keizersgracht in 1665. He also continued to lend money, now for the first time to artists. Rembrandt is known to have owed three sums of money to Becker: 537 guilders borrowed in December 1662 at 5% interest, 450 guilders borrowed in March 1663 against a pledge, and an obligation to Lodewijck van Ludick which was sold to Becker early in 1664 (Notes 31,32). Difficulties over repayment probably arose in the first two instances over disagreement as to the conditions of the loans. On 29 August 1665 the apothecary Abraham Francken declared in a sworn statement that he had ofered the amount due, plus the interest, to Becker at Rembrandt's request, but that Becker had refused to accept it, because Rembrandt first had to finish a Juno and also had to do something else for him. Rembrandt appears to have threatened legal action, but in any case the matter was settled on 6 October 1665 when Becker accepted the payment and returned the pledge, in the form of nine paintings and two (constprint boecken'. What happened to the Juno is not clear. A Juno by Rembrandt is listed in Becker's inventory and it is generally assumed that the Juno in the Armand Hammer Foundation in Los Angeles is the one mentiorted in the statemertt and the inventory. That it is certainly the one in the statement would seem to be justified by the fact that it appears to be unfinished (Notes 37,38). The sale of the obligation to Lodewijck van Ludick to Becker is attested in statements of 31 December 1664 by Abraham Francken and the poet-cum-dyer Thomas Asselyn, the latter declaring that it was bought for textiles to the value of 500 guilders. Three years later Rembrandt had still not paid the debt and the case was brought before an arbitration commission. In the commission's findings of 24 July 1668 the extent of the debt was settled at 1082 guilders, two-thirds of which had to be paid in cash, while the rest was to be paid off in six months in the form of drawings, prints or paintings. Rembrandt also agreed to pay the cash amount within six months while Becker agreed to pay Rembrandt's share of the costs. Rembrandt offered his person and possessions as surety and his son Titus also came forward as guarantor. Whether the debt was ever paid is unclear: Titus died shortly afterwards and Rembrandt about a year later (Note 42). The conditions were actually quite lenient, while Becker's admiration for Rembrandt's art is clear from the fact that he did not mind whether the debt was paid in paintings, prints or drawings. The fourteen works by Rembrandt in Becker's inventory are the largest group by a single master. Obviously Becker had a predilectionfor his work and bought it, but he did not sell it on, as has been suggested (Note 44). Two other artists who borrowed money from Becker were Frederick de Moucheron, who was given an apparently interest-free loan of a hundred guilders in August 1662 and Jan Lievens the Elder, who borrowed four hundred guilders in all between May 1667 and October 1668. By far the greatest number of loans made by Becker date from the period 1674-8, his debtors including Willem Six, Gerrit Uylenburg, Willem Blauw and Abraham van Halmael, as well as the artists Philips de Koninck, Domenicus van Tol and Antony van der Laen. The pledges for the loans are extremely varied, but paintinas often figured among them in the case of both artists and non-artists. In addition Becker also continued to invest in shipping and property. At the end of the summer of 1678 he fell seriously ill and on 16 September he was buried in the Oude Kerk. His estate at his death amounted to 200,000 guilders and it seems fairly clear that in the 1660s and 1670s his activities as a merchant had declined and he had lived mainly off the interest on loarts. Becker's collection of paintings (see Appendix II) Becker appears to have begun collecting pictures around 1660, when the increase in his means allowed it. By comparison with other collections of the day, such as those of Jan van de Cappelle (197 paintings) and Gerrit Uylenburg (95 paintings), his 231 works represent a very sizable holding (Note 63). In the case of 137 of them the name of the painter is known, the best represented artists being Rembrandt (14 works), Jan Lievens the Elder (6), Jan Lievens the Younger (10), Philips de Koninck (7), Frederick de Moucheron (5) and Rubens (3). The collection also included worksfrom Rembrandt's circle (Last-man and Bol) and from Haarlem (Brouwer, Jan de Bray, Goltzius and Cornelis van Haarlem), and in addition work by much earlier artists such as Dürer, Holbein, Lucas van Leyden and Herri met de Bles, as well as ten pictures of Italian origin. Becker certainly acquired paintings through his moneylending and he may further have had agreements like the one with Rembrandt with other artists, these actually being advantageous to both parties. However, his loans to artists were not very numerous, so he must certainly have bought a great many pictures as well. An advertisement discovered in the Oprechte Haerlems Dinsdacgse Courant of 21 March 1679 shows that Becker's art collection was sold separately from the rest of his estate. It also clearly describes him as a collector of many year's standing.No indication whatever has been found that Becker acted as an art-dealer, while his known financial transactions with artists show him to have acted fairly and in no sense can he be said to have exploited them.

Більшість європейських країн була залучена до збройного протистояння між католицьким та протестантським союзами в ранньомодерну епоху. Водночас цей конфлікт мав активний резонанс і поза теренами розвою Тридцятилітньої війни. Мета статті — з’ясувати місце Війська Запорозького у політичних планах урядів Швеції, Трансильванії, Речі Посполитої та Московського царства на зламі 1620–1630-х рр. Висновки: завдяки гучним військовим звитягам українське козацтво здобуло широкий розголос у європейському світі. Держави антигабсбурзької коаліції мали намір скористатися розгортанням визвольного руху в Україні, зокрема й через релігійний чинник, для залучення на свій бік запорожців у боротьбі з силами Католицької ліги. Дипломатичні зусилля через місії Олександра Рубцова, Філіппа Садлєра, Павла Страсбурга, П’єра Ладмірала, Жана де Грева та ін. не досягли бажаних результатів. Натомість Річ Посполита досить ефективно використала козацтво на східних рубежах для відстоювання своїх територіальних завоювань. Таким чином, Війську Запорозькому відводилася важлива роль у континентальному політичному пасьянсі. Воно отримало досвід налагодження міжнародних зв’язків, які стали невід’ємним чинником розгортання Вивольної війни українського народу 1648–1657 рр. Ключові слова: Військо Запорозьке, козацька Україна, міжнародні відносини, дипломатія, Річ Посполита, Тридцятилітня війна.

Öz Çok uzun bir geçmişe dayanan Türk- Ukrayna (Kozak) ilişkileri, tarih boyunca inişli-çıkışlı bir seyir göstermiştir. Bohdan Hmelnıtskıy’in hetmanlık döneminde (1648-1657) akim kalan Osmanlı-Kozak yakınlaşması, Petro Doroşenko’nun (1665-1676) hetmanlık döneminde Ukrayna Kozaklarının Osmanlı tabiliğine girmesiyle neticelenmiştir. Söz konusu bu tabilik Osmanlı Devleti’ni, Ukrayna toprakları hakimiyet mücadelesinde üçüncü bir güç olarak Polonya ve Rusya ile karşı karşıya getirmiştir. Petro Doroşenko’nun Rusya safına geçmesi (1676), Osmanlı Devleti’nin hem Ukrayna Kozakları üzerindeki otoritesinin sarsılmasına hem de mücadele halinde bulunduğu rakipleri Polonya ve Rusya’nın gerisinde kalmasına neden olmuştur. Hetman Petro Doroşenko’dan sonra Osmanlı Devleti, Hetman Bohdan Hmelnıtskıy’in oğlu Yuriy Hmelnıtskıy’i hetman tayin ederek, Kozaklar üzerindeki otoritesini tekrar tesis etmek istemiştir. Bu çalışmada; Yuriy Hmelnıtskıy’ın Osmanlı Devleti’ne esir düşüp rehin olarak tutulmasına kadar olan siyasi yaşamı ele alınacak ve hangi konjektürel nedenlerle Osmanlı Devleti tarafından hetman tayin edildiğine değinilecektir. Nihayetinde Osmanlı Devleti hizmetinde bir hetman olarak yürütmüş olduğu siyasi faaliyetleriyle, Osmanlı Devleti’nin beklentilerini karşılayıp karşılayamadığı hususu, neden ve sonuçlarıyla değerlendirilecektir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Osmanlı Devleti, Ukrayna Kozakları, Rusya, Bohdan Hmelnıtskıy, Yuriy Hmelnıtskıy. From Captıvıty To Hetman: Yurii Khmelnitsky (1641-1685) Abstract Turkish-Ukrainian (Cossacks) relations, which have a very long history, have shown an up-and-down course throughout history. The Ottoman- Cossack rapprochement, which failed during the hetmanate of Bogdan Khmelnytsky (1648-1657), resulted in the subordination of the Ukrainian Cossacks to the Ottoman Empire during the hetmanate of Petro Doroshenko (1665-1676). This subordination brought the Ottoman Empire face to face with Poland and Russia as a third power in the struggle for dominance over the Ukrainian lands. Petro Doroshenko's defection to the Russian side (1676) caused the Ottoman Empire to lose its authority over the Ukrainian Cossacks and to fall behind its rivals Poland and Russia. After hetman Petro Doroshenko, the Ottoman Empire wanted to re-establish its authority over the Cossacks by appointing Yurii Khmelnitsky, the son of hetman Bogdan Khmelnitsky, as hetman. In this study, the political life of Yurii Khmelnytskyi until he was captured by the Ottoman Empire and held as a hostage will be analysed and the conjectural reasons for his appointment as a hetman by the Ottoman Empire will be discussed. Finally, the political activities he carried out as a hetman in the service of the Ottoman Empire and whether he was able to meet the expectations of the Ottoman Empire will be evaluated with its causes and consequences. Keywords: Ottoman Empire, Ukrainian Cossacks, Russia, Bogdan Khmelnitsky, Yurii Khmelnitsky.

Theoretical issues of formation of the statehood of the hetman – Bohdan Khmelnytsky – the history of military affairs and psychological aspects that showed Bohdan Khmelnytsky as a strong, mature personality are studied. In this article, we will analyze the various aspects of military events led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Let's touch on the main battles of Khmelnytsky region in general and analyze each battle separately and the result it brought. The events described in this article testify to the incredible freedom of spirit of the Ukrainian people, steadfastness in the face of any circumstances, the will of the hetman himself. How to achieve a great goal, without defeats, mistakes, wrong steps and traitors, if you turn off the human factor, it can be achieved easily. And since this cannot be prevented and the human factor is present in this period, so there are mistakes, wrong steps and traitors that worsen the already difficult situation. Our opinion in this article, you can read and analyze, with our opinion you can agree or disagree, you decide. The conditions of the war of that time are very interesting, because considering the aspect of the present, it is very different. Khmelnytsky region is a period of national liberation war, led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky. The events of the historical period take place in such years – 1648-1657 – the main battles through which the freedom of the Ukrainian people depended. During these 9 years, 3 agreements took place, which brought Khmelnytsky confidence in his actions and recognition by the Cossacks of greater respect for the rule of the hetman. The article describes the figure of Bohdan Khmelnytsky for a reason, we believe that without such a hero of Ukraine, these events would not have happened, so the confirmation that in the Khmelnychyn – Hetman Khmelnytsky – a real hero, you can read in our article. It is true that the path of the hetman and the strategy of warfare are strong and clear, but the mistakes he made during the decisive events, some see as a betrayal, others – without this, it would be impossible to release. Such aspects we also consider and describe two very significant mistakes of Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Khmelnytsky's actions during the main decisions played an ambiguous role. The history of Ukraine cannot be changed, we can only consider what actions could be changed for the better consequences.