Mazepa's Ukraine: Understanding Cossack Territorial Vistas Author(S): Zenon E
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The President and Fellows of Harvard College Mazepa's Ukraine: Understanding Cossack Territorial Vistas Author(s): Zenon E. Kohut Source: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1/4, POLTAVA 1709: THE BATTLE AND THE MYTH (2009-2010), pp. 1-28 Published by: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41756495 . Accessed: 01/06/2014 01:47 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and The President and Fellows of Harvard College are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Harvard Ukrainian Studies. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 80.7.236.84 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 01:47:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Mazepa's Ukraine: Understanding Cossack Territorial Vistas Zenon E. Kohuť According to PylypOrlyk, HetmánIvan Mazepa offeredthis explanation whenhe switchedhis allegiancefrom Peter I to CharlesXII ofSweden: Andbecause this [matter] could no longerbe hiddenfrom you I attest beforeGod, for Whom there are no secrets,and swear that I wantto do thiswith God's help not for my own benefit, not for greater privileges, not forgreater enrichment, and not for any other desires, but for the sake of allof you, who remain under my authority and leadership, for your wives andchildren, for the common good of our mother my fatherland poor Ukraine,for all ofthe Zaporozhian Host and the Little Rossian nation, forthe elevation and expansion of the Host's rights and privileges, I want todo thiswith God's help so thatyou, with [your] wives and children and theFatherland with the Zaporozhian Host, would not perish because of theSwedish or Muscovite side.1 Thejustification for altering the hetman's political course contains references to "poor" motherUkraine, the fatherland,the Zaporozhian Host, and the "LittleRossian" nation- conceptsthat by the time of Ivan Mazepa had become an integralpart of Ukrainianpolitical thought. But whatvision did Mazepa evokewhen he referredto Ukraine,the fatherland,the LittleRossian nation, and theZaporozhian Host? What territories were envisioned by these terms? Eventhough various aspects of Ukrainian political culture have been studied, theterritorial dimension has been poorlyunderstood. This study attempts to establishhow a territorialvision of Ukraineevolved from the establishment of the Hetmanatein 1649 by HetmánBohdan Khmel'nyts'kyito the end of therule of Hetmán Ivan Samoilovychand theassumption of the hetmancy by Ivan Mazepa in 1687. This content downloaded from 80.7.236.84 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 01:47:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2 KOHUŤ i. Ruthenian Regionalism and Identity Prior to Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi Conceptsof a Ukrainianterritorial entity and ofa Rutheniannation had been wellestablished long before the 1648 revolt. They began to evolvesoon afterthe Union ofLublin (1569). At thattime, three Ruthenian palatinates- Volhynia, Bratslav,and Kyiv-were transferred from the GrandDuchy of Lithuaniato the Kingdomof Poland.By the 1580sa regionalRuthenian political identity began to emerge,based on the threenewly incorporated palatinates and the Rus' (Galicia) and Podilliapalatinates that had longbeen partof Poland.For example,King Stephen Báthory addressed the "lords and knightsresiding in the Rus',Kyiv, Bratslav, and VolhynianUkraine."2 Toward the end ofthe sixteenth centuryan evolvinggenealogical program for the Princes Ostroz'kyi attempted to linkthem with the "princesof Old Rus'" and the "land of Rus'."This land provedto be theRuthenian territories of the Kingdom of Poland: Galician Rus', Volhynia,the Kyiv region, and Podillia.3 By the seventeenthcentury this growing political territorial identity was accompaniedby the articulation of the concept of a Rutheniannation ( naroď) as an equal partnerof the Polish and Lithuaniannations.4 This argument was also based on thealleged rights guaranteed at thetime of their incorporation intoPoland. For example, in theJustification ofInnocence (1623; attributed to MeletiiSmotryts'kyi), the author argues: For thoseabove-mentioned honorable deeds and audaciousacts of couragethat the noble Ruthenian nation rendered to theGrand Dukes, theirLords, [and] Their Majesties the Kings of Poland, it has been given thefreedom by them to sitin senatorialdignity equally with the two, Polishand Lithuanian,nations, to givecounsel concerning the good oftheir states and theirown fatherland, and to enjoyall thedignities, prerogatives,the call to offices,freedoms, rights, and libertiesof the Kingdomof Poland. This was given to it as equalto equal and free [nation] tofree Polish nation, united and incorporated injoint honor and unity of corporatebody: to princesand nobles, the nobility and knighthood, the clericaland lay estates. At the same time, the people of urban condition ofthat nation were also immediatelygiven their rights and liberties [in return]for their faithful submission and true benevolence.5 The issue ofterritorial identity and territorial-nationalrights based on the 1569incorporation is wellillustrated by Adam Kysil's presentation of the nobil- ity'sgrievances at the Sejm (Diet) of 1641.Kysil' equated thefour palatinates ofVolhynia, Bratslav, Kyiv, and Chernihivas Rus',considering them as a single territorialunit with rights and privilegesstemming from their incorporation This content downloaded from 80.7.236.84 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 01:47:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MAZEPA'SUKRAINE 3 intothe Kingdom of Poland (the Chernihiv palatinate was createdin 1635from lands won fromMuscovy, and was giventhe same statusas the territories thatwere incorporatedin 1569).6Kysil's vision, therefore, does not include thenon-incorporated Rus' (Galicia), Beiz, and Podilliapalatinates. Neverthe- less, the persecutionof the OrthodoxChurch and populationanywhere in theCommonwealth was considereda violationof the rights of the Orthodox nobilityin theincorporated territories.7 Similarly, the violation of the rights of thenon-noble strata of the "Ruthenian nation" was a violationof the rights of theOrthodox nobility of the incorporated territories. Thus, Kysil' viewed the "Rutheniannation" as a communitycomposed of a numberof orders. 2. Cossack Ukraine and the Ruthenian Nation These conceptswere very much presentduring the greatCossack revoltin the Polish-LithuanianCommonwealth. As a resultof the uprising,Hetmán Bohdan Khmelnyts'kyicleared much of Ukraineof Polishrule, and by late 1648 he had reachedthe Polish-Ukrainianethnic border and stoppedthere. The hetmánreturned to Kyivwhere he arrangeda triumphalentry for himself intothe city. Khmelnyts'kyi was greetedby the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Paisios, and the Kyivanmetropolitan, Syl'vestr Kosiv, with the honorifictitle "Most IllustriousRuler," or illustrissimusprinceps . The Kyivan academy called Hetmán Khmelnyts'kyi"Moses, savior, redeemer, and liberatorof the Ruthenian nation fromthe slavery of the Liakhs [Poles]."8 Soon Khmelnyts'kyihimself began to reiteratethe idea ofcomplete Ruthe- nianliberation. In discussionswith Polish envoys in Februaryof 1649 he defined whichterritories he had in mind: I shallfight to free the whole Ruthenian nation from bondage! ...I willnot crossthe border to wage war! I willnot raise my sword against the Turks andTatars! I have enough now in Ukraine [Kyiv palatinate], Podillia, and Volhynia-there is nowenough time, wealth, and provisions in myland and principality- all theway to Lviv,Kholm, and Galicia.And when I standon theVistula, I shallsay to theLiakhs beyond it: sit still and be quiet,Liakhs!9 Whatwas HetmánBohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi's vision of the territorial extent of his politicalentity and theRuthenian nation? It was limitedto theRuthenian palatinatesof the Kingdomof Poland. In 1649 Khmelnyts'kyipursued his Ruthenianproject with great enthusiasm. In Februaryhe toldthe senior Ortho- dox noblemannegotiating on behalfof Poland, Adam Kysil',and his familyto "renouncethe Liakhsand join the Cossacks,for the Liakhland will perish, This content downloaded from 80.7.236.84 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 01:47:42 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4 KOHUŤ butall theRus' willrule - thisvery year, very soon"10 However, as theresult of betrayalby his Tatarallies, only six monthslater Khmelnyts'kyi had to settle forfar less than "all the Rus'." According to theZbořiv Agreement between the Cossacks and the Commonwealth,the Cossack lands (i.e.,accepted into the Cossack register)included the Kyiv,Chernihiv, and Bratslavpalatinates, but not Volhyniaand certainlynot Galicia- a modifiedversion of the territories thatwere incorporated in 1569.The boundarieswere defined as follows: Beginningfrom the Dnieper on this side [the Right Bank of the Dnieper- ZK] in Dymer,Hornostaipil, Korostyshiv, Pavoloch, Pohrebyshche, Pryluka[Stara Pryluka], Vinnytsia, and Bratslav,and fromBratslav to Iampilas faras theDnister, and fromthe Dnister to theDnieper... and on the otherside [theLeft Bank of the Dnieper-ZK] in Oster, Chernihiv,Romen, and Nizhen, all the way to the Muscovite border and theDnieper.11 Since the ZbořivAgreement defined