The purpose of the study is to clarify, based on the study of identifi ed sources and literature, the role of the Khotyn campaign of the Zaporozhian Army in the transformation of Cossack offi cers into the Ukrainian political protoelite during 1621–1638. The methodological foundations of the study are the ideas of V. Lypynsky, G. Mosca, V. Pareto, G. Sartori, and other elitologists; theoretical positions of neo-positivism, the school of “Annals” and “New Political History”; the principles of historicism, objectivity, and system, as well as the following methods: narrative, problem-chronological, historical-genetic, reconstructive, periodization, structural, diachronic and terminological analysis. The scientifi c novelty is to try for the first time in historiography to clarify the signifi cance of the Zaporozhian Army’s participation in the Khotyn campaign as one of the most important factors in the evolution of Cossack offi cers into the Ukrainian political proto-elite and to structure this process. Conclusions. The Khotyn campaign served as a powerful impetus not only for the establishment of the existing embryos of the process of transforming the Cossack sergeants into a political protoelite, but also, not least, gave them the irreversibility and unprecedented dynamics of development. We distinguish three periods in it. Thus, in the fi rst period (1621 – November 1625), the offi cers began to realize themselves as legitimate spokesmen and defenders of the interests of the entire Zaporozhian Army, including unregistered Cossacks. And thus, it demanded a signifi cant increase in the register from Warsaw, the right of the Cossacks to live not only in royal possessions but in noble and ecclesiastical ones as well; formed its own bodies of administrative and judicial power, “creating a separate Commonwealth,” which sought to extend to the entire Kyiv province. At the same time, the elder strongly insisted on the legalization of the revived hierarchy of the Orthodox Church by the Sejm and the king, the cessation of religious oppression of the “Rus’ people “ and in early 1622 outlined the idea of its equality with Polish and Lithuanian. The territorial and administrative reform of the Zaporozhian Army, carried out in late 1625 – early 1626 by Hetman M. Doroshenko, began the second period (November 1625 – June 1630), which was characterized by the establishment in the Cossack region of the regimental-hundred system – the foundations of the future administrative-territorial system of the Ukrainian state in the mid-XVII – 80’s of the XVIII century. There is a legitimization of the power of the sergeant in the person of the leaders of regiments, hundreds, and huts as administrative-territorial structures. It continues to work resolutely to legitimize the functioning of the Orthodox Church and to liquidate the union. At the same time, radical, moderate, and bargaining groups of sergeants were being formed, which had a negative eff ect on its acquisition of the qualities of a political protoelite. For the fi rst time, its radical group, led by Taras Fedorovych, began an uprising in March 1630 and called on the commonwealths of Ukraine and “Rus’” to rise to the struggle for the faith “against the Lyakhs,” thus combining its religious orientation with national liberation. The third period (the second half of 1630 – December 1638) was characterized by a signifi cant acceleration of the process of transformation of radical and moderate groups into a political proto-elite, and the agreement – the leader of Polish politics in Ukraine. Th erefore, qualitative changes took place in the development of their political consciousness and activities. Thus, in 1632, not yet fully formed, for the fi rst time through the embassy of the Zaporozhian Army in the Sejm it violated the petition for equalization of the Cossacks in rights with the nobility, the so-called recognition of its “political people” of Ukraine and eventually legitimized the Orthodox Church. From this year it waged a decisive struggle (fi rst the political, and in 1637-1638 – the armed) for the preservation of the rights and freedoms of the Ukrainian (the Rus’) people. For the fi rst time, it took over the function of defender of the social interests of the Commonwealth and in dotted lines, in a vague form, during the uprising of 1637-1638 outlined the idea of liberating Rus’ from Polish rule (“lyakhiv”). In turn, the agreement group of officers took part in the suppression of the uprising.
Read full abstract
Jul 23, 2022
Kostiantyn Yanchenko 
Open Access
