The President and Fellows of Harvard College
A Linguistic Analysis of Ivan Mazepa's Universals and Letters Author(s): Michael A. Moser Source: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1/4, POLTAVA 1709: THE BATTLE AND THE MYTH (2009-2010), pp. 391-411 Published by: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41756509 . Accessed: 08/09/2014 00:17
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 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions A Linguistic Analysis of Ivan Mazepa's Universais and Letters
Michael A. Moser
Ukrainian as the Official Language of the Hetmanate under Hetmán Ivan Mazepa
In terms of both functionality and language status, it is obvious thatthe sphereof administrationis a particularlyimportant domain of any writtenlanguage. Studies on thehistory of languages, however, often pay scarce attentionto administrativedocuments, especially if they deal with periods when otherdomains, in particularthose of belles-lettres, are alreadyrepresented in thecorpus quite well. As forthe Ukrainian case, earlier documents, such as the chartersof the late fourteenth century and earlypart of the fifteenth, have been ratherthoroughly analyzed by linguists,and theirsignificance for the study ofthe Ukrainian language is widelyacknowledged. Philological and linguistic researchon the languageof laterofficial documents, including those of the Hetmanatein Left-BankUkraine, has been much less intense,though, and informationon thistopic is usuallyreduced to a fewremarks in textbooks.1 As a result,little is knownabout Ukrainianas a chancerylanguage dur- ingthe Hetmanate. However, a generallook at theUkrainian situation in the eighteenthcentury makes it plausibleto assumethat it was nota new forma- tion,but a continuationof earlierRuthenian traditions. Like othervarieties of Ukrainian,the languageof administrationwas stillexposed to the rather strongimpact of the Polish language despite the political divide, while the role of Russianas a contactlanguage gradually became more importantduring thatperiod, too.2 Althoughwe arenot dealing with Ivan Mazepa's personal language but with thatof his chancery,a brieflook at Mazepa's own linguisticprofile is apropos here. Born on 20 March 1639 in Mazepyntsinear Bila Tserkva,Mazepa, a descendantof émigrésfrom the morewestern parts of Ukraine,studied at the KyivanMohyla College in Kyivand the JesuitCollege in Warsaw.After spendingsome timein the Germanand Italianlands, the Netherlands,and
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 392 MOSER
France,he became a royalcourtier in Warsawbefore returning to Ukrainein 1663.Based on thesebiographical data, it is safeto assumethat Mazepa was fluentin both Ukrainianand Polishand thathe knewChurch Slavonic and Latinwell; his excellent command of Latin was praisedby his contemporaries.3 Back in Ukraine,Mazepa forgedan impressivecareer. After being captured duringone of his manydiplomatic missions to the CrimeanTatars by the ZaporozhianCossacks in 1674,he was handedover to theLeft-Bank hetmán, Ivan Samoilovych.From that time onward he "quicklygained the confidence of Samoilovychand Tsar PeterI, was made a 'courtierof the hetmán/and was senton numerousmissions to Moscow....In 1682Mazepa was appointed Samoilovych'sgeneral osaul,"4 and in July1687 he was electedthe new hetmán. Fromthen on, Mazepa was in continuouscontact with Muscovite officials and theirRussian language, but this does notnecessarily mean that Mazepa had a verygood activecommand of Russian. If Oleksander Ohloblyn maintained in hisfundamental book that,"along with Polish, Muscovite, and Tatar,he had a commandof Latin, Italian, and German,and knewFrench,"5 this might seem to be too boldan assumption.However, Tatiana Tairova-Iakovleva, obviously rely- ingon thememoirs of Mazepa's French contemporary, Jean Casimir de Baluze, partlyagrees that Mazepa, "alongwith Ukrainian, Russian, and Polish,knew Latinperfectly... and spokeItalian and German,"adding that it was PylypOrlyk who maintainedthat Mazepa also knewthe Tatar language "very well."6
The Sources
One ofthe crucial problems of studying the language of Ivan Mazepa's chancery becomesevident very quickly: Only a fewtexts have been editedin a waythat can be calledmore or lesssatisfactory from a philologicalor linguistic perspec- tive.As forthe many editions of Mazepa's letters,for example, even the most fundamentalmatters of text tradition often remain unclear. Time and againone cannotbe certainwhether the edited text is based on an originalmanuscript fromthe Hetmanate'schancery, a copy,or simplyanother edition, and very oftenit is noteven clearif the edition is based on theversion that was issued in thehetman's chancery or on a translationmade forRussian addressees. Fortunately,questions like these have not been neglectedby Ivan Butych in hiseditions of Mazepa's universais (MU, MU II) orby V'iacheslav Stanislavs'kyi in hisedition of Mazepa's letters of 1687-91 (ML). Sincea numberof important documentsfrom the Hetmanate, particularly the universais, have been recently editedmore carefully than ever (XU, HU ), one mightbe quiteoptimistic.7 New studiescould significantly deepen our knowledge of the official Ukrainian lan- guageof the Hetmanate in thesecond half of the seventeenth century and the beginningof the eighteenth (although, admittedly, a closer look soon reveals
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LINGUISTICANALYSIS OF MAZEPA'SUNIVERSALS AND LETTERS 393 a considerableamount of dubious or clearlyerroneous renderings in some of theserecent editions, too). Afterall, the importance of this topic for Ukrainian historicalsociolinguistics is obvious.In theend, we are dealingwith an idiom thatrepresents the last historicalvariety of Ukrainianfunctioning as a vital officiallanguage prior to the firstnew stepsthat were taken in the Austrian Empireafter the Revolution of 1848.8 My presentsmall contributionfocuses on one major question:To what extentdid the Muscoviteofficial language already exert an influenceon the languageof the Hetmanate's chancery under Ivan Mazepa? My tentative answer willbe based on an analysisof two universais from Mazepa's chancery,dating fromdifferent periods of his hetmancy,and a comparisonwith the language of some officialletters to Muscoviteaddressees. While Mazepa's universais representthe internalofficial written language of the Hetmanateat the turn ofthe eighteenth century and offeran answerto thequestion of whether the Hetmanate'slinguistic traditions remained intact, Mazepa's externalcorre- spondencewith Muscovite addressees is situatedin a ratherdifferent context becausethis communication constellation is multilingualfrom the very outset. Againstthe background of upcoming developments it is thefactors of Russian- Ukrainianlinguistic adaptation and comprehensionthat are of significant interest:Was the languageof the hetman'sletters to Muscoviteaddressees basicallyidentical to theinternal official language of the Hetmanate, and was it understoodas such in Muscovy?Or was the Hetmanate'sofficial language maintainedon theUkrainian side, but translated in orderto be understoodby theRussian side? Or didthe Hetmanate's chancellery adapt its correspondence withMuscovites to Russianlinguistic traditions already at thisrather early stage?9
Two Universals
In Butych'sedition one of the firstuniversals, which is based on an original manuscript,was issuedby Ivan Mazepa on 9 October1687 in Baturyn:
IoaHT>Ma3ena, reTMaHZ» 3 Bowckomt> mxt> íjapcKoro npecBfcTAoro BeAwnecTBa3anopo3CKHAi. Bcew CTa/miMHfcm nepHfc Bowcica mxt> ij^pcKoro npecB^TAoro BeAwnecTBa3anoposcKoro, a MeHOBMTenany ikmkobhmkobm npwAyíjKOMy,0603H0My, cydw m ocayAOAíncMKOBbw, cothmkom [sic]aTaMaHOAí, bomtomt» mKO>KAOMy, KOMy Kcußeicb o tom Bl>AaTM HaAAe>KMm, 03HawMyeAí: wacb 3axoByioHH mm npaBa M
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 394 MOSER
I103B0AH6AÍnpeBeAetfHOMy b Bory omy AßKceHTiioHkmmobmhk), iryMeHOBMMonacrupa MeHewHoro FycTMHCKoro FlpMAyijKoro m no HeMT>óyAynbiAí omußM iryMeHOAí mbcèmi» Toew oõmtcam 3aKOWHMKOAí AAHyCTaBMHHOM B[aUiUX] MUAOCTBZX10 llJOACHHbl# XBaAbl BOKOU M AAH Bcna/?THBcerAaniHbix pocxoAOBi» M0H
At a timemuch closer to the Battleof Poltava,on 20 April1708, Mazepa issued anotherbrief universal in Bila Tserkva,close to his originalhome- stead:
ripecB-fcTAfcMiiioromAep>KaBHliMiii020 BeAMKoro rocybapn ero qapcKoro [sic] BeAMHecTBaBomckt> ZanopoHCCKMx-b reTMam» CAaBHoro HWHa cs/rroroanocTOAa AHApen mB-fcAoro OpAa KaBaAepi» loam» Ma3ena. naHy noAKOBHMKOBMnepeacAaBKOMy, cTapiiiMH-fc noAKOBOM, cothmkomtjmBCfeMij CTapiiiMMT? mmchiummtj BOMCKOBoro mnocnoAMToro HMHyB nOAKy TOMT> SHaMAyiOHMM-bCH o6bIBaTeAeMT> MKOHCAOMy, KOMy 6blKOABeKT> O TOMI» Bl>AaTM HaAOKaAO, CMMT> yH'ÈBepcaAOM'b HaiUMMT» 03MaMMyeMT>[sic],MÂT» naH-b AeHMC-b AepKam», cothmkt» 6o6hobckïm npocMAT»Hauioro TaKoro pecneiery, aówcMO kt> BcnapTio aomobmxt> ero noTpeÓT»HaAaAM eMy ceAO CyiuKy b noAKyriepeflCAaBKOMi» b cothIj ByÕHOBCKOM3HaMAyiOHoecH. Mbi npeTO reTMam» m KaBaAepi» pecneKTyiOHMHa poHeHbieero m Tenep-bpoHHHiecn b BoíícKy Zanopo^CKOM-bycAyrw, a m BnpeAb ao ohwxtî3aoxoHyioHM, a ao Toro yrAHAaioHMmHa Toe, hto oht> nam» cowhmkt» õyÓHOBCKiíí Hpe3T> neBHoe
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LINGUISTICANALYSIS OF MAZEPA'SUNIVERSALS AND LETTERS 395
BpeMHHeBOAK) iiiBeijKyK) Tepn^AT) m TbiMi> caMbiM-b ao KpaMHeroHa cy6cTaHi4ÍMCBoeíí nprnnoAb 3HMii^eHH, HaAaeM-b eMy, naHy faemicy, COTHMKOBM6yÓHOBCKOMy npepenoHoe ceAO CyiiiKM b3yno^iHyio nocceciio 3T>BCÈMM KrpyHTaMM, AOÖpaMM myroAiflMM 3AaBHa m Tenep [sic] TyAa npMHaAOKaHMMH,n03B0AHK)HM Om AIOAeíí nOCnOAMTMX [sic]HaAOKMTOe nocAynieHCTBOmiiobmhhoctm a3 [sic] rpyHTOBT> mAo6pT> TaMoniHMbix [sic] KOpMCTMBCHKie M IIO>KMTKMOWÔMpaTM, 3a HMMT> a6bi naHT> noAKOBHMK-bnepeflCAaBCKiñ, Tenep HaKa3Hbiw,a Bnped coBe/?iiieHHbiM, CTa/?niMHanoAKOBaa, cotwhmkm mhmxto 3roAa, He Ba>KHACH, eMy naHy AepKany,b tom >KaAHOMhmhmtm nepeniKOAbi, nwAHO npwKa3yeAí m rp03H0BapyeAi, bomt 3acb TaMOiiiHin et nocoACTBOMi», onpoHT> caMM* K03aK0BT>(?),12 noBMHHbi BT>ceM nocAynieHCTBO mnoBMHHOCTM eMy,n. AepKany,owAaBarb [sic]. AaHT>b B-feAOM IjepKBM, anpeAH 20, pony 1708. 3BMniT)MeHOBaHHMMreTMaHT> mKaBaAe/?, pyKOio BAacHoio.13
Basically,the two documents-both editionsare based on originaldocu- ments-are writtenin thesame language.It is thetypical Ukrainian chancery languageof the period, with its significant amount of genuinely Polish elements and lexicalloans fromLatin (mostly via Polish),but still almost no loans from Russian.The substanceof thislanguage is clearlyUkrainian with some ele- mentsof a NorthUkrainian dialectal character, both in termsof phonology and inflectionalmorphology. The followingphonological and orthographicfeatures make the text typi- callyUkrainian:
♦ Thetreatment of etymological é, which is usuallyused etymologically correctly,but is sometimes confused withy: cf. 1687: cydw (dative singular) or"fc for etymological i in yHfcBepcaAOM-b; as istypical of North Ukrainian dialects,è appearsas e onlyin unstressedsyllables, as in Hapeijfc along withHa plJHijli //1708: yHliBepcaAOMT»; seealso b B^aoííLJepKBM (the noun is probablyformed from the nominative form i^picBa, so -mis likely to be thereflex of here); ♦ Themixing of m and w: mahhobt», oöbiTeAfc, SbmhiT), TycTMWcKOMy along withTycTbiHCKoro, npbiKa3yeAi, po3M-fepoBM^, öbiBnibix-b, 6yAynbiAí, npUXOAHHbl*;1708: KOpWCTM, 3BMim>MeHOBaHHMM, aÓMCMO, AOMOBMXT>, nocnoAMTMx; ♦ Thereflex C(C)'V < *CbjV: 1687: Bcna/rni (genitive singular); 1708: BcnapTio (dativesingular), 3HMiijeHfl (genitive singular), but 1708 with the Church Slavonicreflex: yroAiflMM; ♦ Thetreatment of*jbzt> and st: 1687:3 mamhob^,3 MyacMijKoro, 3 cTynaMM, VL3[= Í3or i 3?- MM]B ChM 3aKOHHMKOAi, 3CTa/?IHMHbI VLnepHl?, 30CTaBaAM;
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 396 MOSER
1708:3T> BCfeMM KrpyHTaMM, (genitiveSingular), 3HaMAyK)HMMi»CH, 3HaíÍAyK)HoecH,3roAa, 3ynoAHyio; ♦ Theloss of *jb< 1687: MhTVL, MeHewHoro, 3 noMeHewHbix, MeHOBawbiíí; 1708: 3BMiin>MeHOBaHHMM; ♦ Thespelling "o" after sibilants: 1687: Bokoü (genitive singular feminine); 1708:npecBliTAiJMiiioro, AepacaBHfcMinoao, Harnoro, 3HaíiAyK)HoecH; ♦ Thehardening of r, which is typicalof North Ukrainian (and partially SouthwestUkrainian), but not SoutheastUkrainian dialects: 1687: MÄHÄCTwpa,1708: Tenepij, but: 1708: TOcyAapx; ♦ Thespelling "mo": 1687: moAeHHbi*; but 1708: hto; ♦ Thespelling "oa-": 1687: odAaBaAM (inthis case the Russian pronunciation rulescould also have yielded the spelling "a" due to the regressive assimila- tionof A^B-; ♦ Thespelling "Memii-" (not MeHbiu-): 1708: MeHiiiMMï»; ♦ Thespelling "icr-": 1708: KrpyHTaMii; but1708: rpyHTOBT>; ♦ Thespelling w3anopo3CKMAf, 3anopo3CKoro" instead of etymologically ori- ented3anopo>KCKoro, which would have been preferred in theRussian documentsof the time.
As formorphology, the following elements are noteworthy:
♦ Thefrequent use ofthe dative ending -obm with masculine nouns: 1687: nO^lKOBHMKOBM,MßHÄCTMpeBM, BOWTOBM, et al.; I708: nOAKOBHMKOBM, cothmkobm; ♦ Thehard stem in BcerAaiiiHbix; ♦ Thesoft-stem masculine locative ending -[u] in b omófcpaHio; ♦ Theconjugation of xot*6tm: 1687: xoneM; ♦ Thepersonal endings in past tense and conditional forms of the verb: 1708: a6ncMO[...] HaAaAM; ♦ Theinstrumental singular form thmt»: 1708: twmt»; ♦ Theinstrumental singular form hmmt>: 1708: hmmt>; ♦ Theinflectional form aboxt>: 1687: o aboxKaMeHH^c, o aboxt> kslmgh^x, ABOxt>nacT eü.
At the syntacticlevel, the noun phraseo + locativecase witha qualitative meaning,which is typicalof older Ukrainian (and Polish)sources, is notewor- thy(o abo* KaMeHHtf). Only a fewelements come intoplay if the questionof a possibleimpact of the Russiantradition is raised.In the universalof 1687it is virtuallyonly the ChurchSlavonic form BAaA'fcTM, which is not typicalof olderUkrainian chancerytexts,14 but is widespreadin Middle Russiansecular sources; in the universalof 1708 it is the ChurchSlavonic form BpeMH (which is combined
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LINGUISTICANALYSIS OF MAZEPA'SUNIVERSALS AND LETTERS 397 in one nominalphrase with the PolonismneBHoe) and, as anotherChurch Slavonicform, coBepmeHHbiM. None ofthese elements is genuinelyRussian,15 and all ofthem were well knownfrom the UkrainianChurch Slavonic tradi- tions.Still, Church Slavonic does notplay a particularlyimportant rule in these or any otheruniversais from Mazepa's chancery.Even in the tsar'sepithets the adjectivalending of the genitivemasculine singular quite consistently reads -oro in the originaldocuments, not -aro (mxt>ijapcKoro npecB^TAoro BeAMHecTBa,ÍIpecB^TAfewiiioro mAep^aBirfcwiiioao BeAMKoro locy^a^si ero ijapcKoroBeAHHßCTBa). On the otherhand, genuinely Polish elements occur in both textsrather frequently.To name onlythose that are phonologicallymarked (markers are emphasizedwithout comments):
1687:KCMBeK-b, Bcna/wi, BapyeMt, BuieAHKoe, bihgahkm#, BedAyn>, TeAfai, nepeiiiKOAa,npepenoHoro, BAacHOK) [from Czech]; adverbsin -e' MeHOBMTe,HeHapyuiHe. 1708:KOABeicb, BcnapTK), BapyeAi, neBHoe, nepeniKOAbi, BnpeAt (cf. Polish wprzód),npepenoHoe, BAacHoio [via Polish from Czech], icrpyHTaMM.
Functionalwords often coincide with their Polish equivalents, too: the conjunc- tionswx ct>, ace, aceöw, and the negativepronoun acadHan in the documentof 1687or the conjunctionh)kt> (along withhto), the coordinativecausal con- junctionnpeTO, the negativepronoun >KaAHoii and the particle3a ct> in the universalof 1708. Bothuniversais are, to wit,perfectly representative for the whole corpus of IvanMazepa's universais, which continued the Hetmanates linguistic traditions withoutany disruption.
Two Early Letters to Muscovite Addressees
The statusof the Hetmanateas a Muscoviteprotectorate had alreadybeen establishedfor more than three decades whenIvan Mazepa became hetmán, but the Hetmanate'schancery still did not compose its lettersto Muscovites in Russian.In fact,a crucialcaveat must be added here.Both earlier and more recenteditions contain a lotof Russian documents that were issued by Mazepa, buta closerlook reveals that virtually all thesetexts are mere translations. Very oftenthey are introducedby remarks, such as "Bo „b^m"kbcamkhmt» rcApeMT» / reTMaHCKOMl»ÄUGT# nOMMH /HOBaHMÏ ÍTMTAaXl» HanMCaHO"16 or "cnMCOK c AMCTa6eAopycKoro nucbMa,"17 and a comparativelook at thelanguage of these "cnncKM"and otherdocuments makes it clear that"œhcok" does not mean "copy"here but "translation."18
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 398 MOSER
The followingtwo letters to Muscoviteaddressees are apparentlybased on originaldocuments.19 The firstletter was writtenby Mazepa to CountVasilii Golitsynin Baturynon 10 January1689:
Bo>KÏeK)MMAOCTÏK) npeCB'ÈTA'feWllIMX'b M ^epyKdiBH'hÜUllíX BeAMKM* vocy^apeüu,apeü m bqamkvixkhh3gü IoaHHa AAeKCfceBWHa IleTpa AAeKCfeeBMHaMBeAMKÏa locy^apmm ÖA^roß-fepma ijßpeBHbi MBCAHKÏa KH^CHblCo(J)ÏM AAeKCfeeBHbl, BCeHBeAMKÏH MMaAÏfl M B^AblH POCCÏH caMOAe/'ÄiieB'b,M MHorn* rocyAapcTB-b M 3eMe4 BOCTowbix'bM 3ana^HbixT>m ctoe/mux?» omnmeu m m HacAfcdHHKOBfcm rocy/^apeůmoÖAaaAaTeAew mxi> ijßpcKoro npecBrbTAOvo BeAwnecTBa ÓAH^CHOMyöonpMHy m Bo^iiiiorono^iKy AßopoBOMy BoeBOAfc, HCHeBe^lMOHCHOMyKHH3K)BaCMAÏK) BaCMAÏeBMHy IOAMIJMHy, IJflpCTBeHHia ftoAumsLnenaTbi m roc^A^pcTBewHbLVbcamkhxt» m noaMCKM* a^at» oóeperaTeAK),mHaM*fecmHMKy HOsropodcKOAfy, MoeMy Be^qe AacicaBOMy Tocnobuny,npiiHTeAeBH mMMAOCTMBOMy ÓA^roAfcTeAeBM, HH3Koe Moe 3aCbIAaiOHOAOÓMTbe. TcMManacfcscKoro A^Hwca AwxMHMHMa noyica3y bcamkm* rocy^apeů mBeAMKoe Tocy^apnHnt enorme 3toambhom^ orm MeHe 3 riepeBOAO^HOö BbiHaiÏAeHbiAfbao KpwMy nocwAaHoro, mb Ka3MKepMeHtnepes 6en Ka3MKe/?MaHCKoroHacn^iHO Ha3ad 3aBe/?HeHoro, mko MH-èb BaTypMH-b reHBapa8 npwóbiAoroOTnycTMAeAífc h k ija/?CTByiomoMy BeAMKOMy rpaAyMockbIj 3 amctoaímomaíb ao mx ij
The secondletter is datedthe very same dayand was addressedto theRus- sian tsars,Ivan and PeterAlekseevich, and TsarinaSophia Alekseevna:
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LINGUISTICANALYSIS OF MAZEPA'SUNIVERSALS AND LETTERS 399
B
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 400 MOSER
He 3aAe/?>KaK)HM,nponycTMAb ao riepeiconym BHyTpi»KpwMy. IXe aTaMaHT»KOiiioBbiw mBowcko Hn30B0e (:ak)6o H*fcK0T0pbiM TaMT> ace ynopHMMMroAocaMH cbommm b tomt> nepeuiKO^caAM:) mxt>TOAManoBT» 3 GfcHM3an0p03K0Ö ao Ka3MKe/?MeHynopadHe npw npoBOKaTbixi» omnycTMAMmao 6ea Ka3MKe/?Mew&CKoroo oranycKT> ohm* ao KpbiMy nncaAM.KoTopbiM To^iManfc KorAa npwóbiAM ao Ka3MKe/?MeHy,ma^ao CBOeO MCKyM p03M"fcHe MOKyny HeBO./IHMKOB'b OÖHBMAM, TeAbI TOT"b 6eü Ka3MKe/7MeHT>CKMMCnMCaBIHMCH O TOM-b 3 ÖeeMl» nepeKOWCKMAř®, He AonycTHAbmmt> TOAManaMT» exaTM b KpMMi>ho Hacii^iHOmxi> 3aBepHyAbHa3aA"b AO Gèhm, omKOAb aTaMaHT» koiiiobmm mHM30B0e BomckoomnycTMAM hxt> b ropoAbiMaAopocMWCKÏe mnpwôwAM ohm To^iMan-feb BaTypMH-b reHBapn 8 HMCAa,rAe o CBoeMi»noe3Afc m o HaCR/lHOM-b3 Ka3MKe/7MeHa nOBOpOTfc TaKT> CAOBeCHO CKa3aAM, HKO Bbírneü Tyi"bHanncaAOcn. R TeAbi To^iMana cfcBCKoro AeHMca AwKOHMHa 3 cmr&AMCTOMT» MOWWb AAH IIOBHtólIIOrO MoâuiMpH'hMUIOrO O TOM-b AOHecew^Hk BaMi>bcamk puí» vocy^apeutm bcamkomTOcyp^apuiAló omnycKaiOHMamcti om aTaMaHaKomoBoro ko mhIjo noBopoi"fcmxt> TO^iManoBT»nwcaHbíM, mamctt> 6en KasMKe/^MeHtcKoroHa 3anopo>Kbe IIMCaHblM,M3 3an0p0^fH 3 HMMM TOAMâiaAÍW KOMHl> IipMCAaHblW, B npwKasMaAbiH Poccïm nocwAaio: mnpn ceAí& hko HawnoKopHl>M oraAaio MeHenpeMMAOcepAHOM Barnero ijapcKoro npecB/frTAoro BeAwnecTBa ÖAflrocTMHt.3 EaTypMHa reHBa px io poKy1689. Barneroij/zpcKoro npecBfbTAoro BeAwnecTBa BfcpHbiw nodA^HbiM m HazÎHM^cazïniMWCAyra, IßaHT»Ma3ena reTMaH-bBowaca Barnero ija/?CKoro npecBfcTAOSo BeAMMecTBa3anopo3Koro.21
It is immediatelyclear thatthe languageof both documentsis stillvery differentfrom the Russianchancery language of the time.But whatmakes thesedocuments typically Ukrainian? In tryingto answerthis question, one should certainlynot focuson the introductoryor closingparts, with their Church Slavonic-based official epi- thetsand titlesof the tsars,which were clearlyadopted fromRussian. It is noteworthy,however, that typically Ukrainian traits can be foundeven in these formulae.Thus, the letterto Golitsynfeatures the spellingï and minstead of bi in rocjvvzpwHM,ÓAťzroBfcpHia, MaAÏn; in the remainderof the address,the spellingbi instead of m in nenaTbi;the spelling o afterthe sibilant in HOAOÖMTbe; the hardstem in ÖAM>KHOMy,the dative singular ending in npwHTeAeBMand ÖA^roA^TeAeBw;and thetypically Ukrainian epithets HCHeBeyiMO>KHOMy (with the interfix-e-, not -0-),Beyiije AacKaBOMy (in combinationwith the Russian formof address iocno^uny)t and MMAOCTMBOMy(in the secular sense, in com- binationwith the lexical neutral noun, npwHTeAeBM, and theChurch Slavonic
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LINGUISTICANALYSIS OF MAZEPA'SUNIVERSALS AND LETTERS 4OI formÖAtfroA'fcTeAeBM). In theaddress of the letter to thetsars and thetsarina, toponymsare spelledwith an e insteadof an min BAaAMMepcKMMT>,instead of min CMÓfcpcKMAffcand HepHtroBCKHMfc, and Kr in Krpy3MH&ckm xt>, whereas the spellingof e and not o afterthe sibilant in BauieMy,neAOMt (610) and Barnero and particularlythe adjectivalending of the genitivesingular feminine -hh confirmthe considerable Slavonicization of this part (cf. also theetymological spellingof 3anopoj#:cKMAi&). The closingparagraph of the letterto VasiliiGolitsyn is also writtenin keepingwith Ukrainian traditions: np m ceM oöa^ioch mmaoctmbowBaino# KHnyKOŮBeyiMO>KHOCTM ÖAßroA'feTe^icKOM Aacije (with the North Ukrainian -e as a reflexof è in the unstressedending). The renderingof place and timein thesubscription shows 3 < *jbzi>in 3 BaTypwHa,again reraapa withhardened r and themarkedly Ukrainian form poxy, while in his signatureMazepa uses the typicallyUkrainian adjective 3bi*iAHBbiw and the phoneticallyoriented spelling3anopo3Koro. In the closingparagraph of the letterto thetsars, the e afterthe sibilantis again encounteredin Barnero(ij
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 402 MOSER
MXijapcKoro npecBW?TAoro BeAwnecTBa, and the UkrainianHepe3T> with the accusativefor the expressionof agency,as in nepe3 6en Ka3MKe/?MaHCKoro HacMUHOHa3aö 3aBe/?HeHoro.22 Severallexical elements, some ofwhich are genuinelyPolish, confirm the Ukrainiancharacter of the letterto Golitsyn,such as the formof address Be^iMO^cHOCTM(dative singular) and the lexemescnoyiHe (note the adverbial -e ), BblHaMACHblMb, BbinpaBOBaHbIM,AMCt(i>) (3 AMCTOAÍ,3 KOTOpOrO AMCTa), cnocoót (whichfunctioned as a quiterecent loan fromPolish and Ruthenian also inthe Russian language of the time), the relative pronoun hkïm (aide, ïîkivc), and theconjunction ace and itsmarkedly Polish correlative element TeAbi. The letterto Golitsynalso containsa fewelements that are likelyto have been adopted fromRussian and RussianChurch Slavonic. Apart from the above-mentionedtitles and epithets,it is theconstruction no yica3yBeAHKHx locy^apeüm BeAWKoe Tocybapmm with Russian yKa3i> (the word is notattested in SSUM or Tym)and thelocal adverbialk xja/?CTByiomoMyBeAMKOMy rpaAy MockbIj withthe Slavonicparticiple and the Slavonicmetathesis in rpaAy, wherebyit is noteworthythat both phrases immediately refer to elementsof Muscoviterule, either to thetsars themselves or to theirresidence. But more ChurchSlavonic elements are encounteredin thetext: B03M0rAM, BocnpuHAb, and coBe/?iiietffcCTBa, with the vowel in theprefix according to therules of the Second South Slavic Influence;the spelling-ïa in noBeAema,also according to therules of the Second SouthSlavic Influence; the form m3boapm& with the ChurchSlavonic prefix m3- (which probably cannot be interpretedas 3 witha prothetici- here;cf. Polish zwolič ); the presentpassive participle >KeAaeMoro (endingin -oro,not -aro,though); the form pasB'fe with Church Slavonic pa3- insteadof the North Slavic (including East Slavic)po3-; and, finally, the spell- ing formswith the ChurchSlavonic i fromthe *CbjV-group in noBeAeHÏe, HaMfcpeHÏeand npwAOKameivťb.At the same time,no markedlyRussian ele- ments,such as thespelling eBO instead of ero, the adjectival ending -om in the nominativemasculine singular, etc., occur in documentslike these. The narrativepart of the letterto Ivan and Peter Alekseevichand to TsarinaSophia Alekseevna( ML , 271-73) is basicallywritten in Ukrainian, too, as attestedby the followingorthographic and phonologicalelements: mfor bi in B KpwMT»,ynopHMMM and tmmt*(rather [tym] than [tim]< T'feM'b); e forunstressed m in HeicyAa; fori in TO^Man-fc(several times); and e for$ onlyin an unstressedposition, as in o [...] po3M"fcHeor after 7, as in exaTM,o CBoeMT>noe3Afc;23 o after sibilants, as inBauioivrb, Baniow, koihobmm, KomoBoro, To^iManoBT»,noBH^Miiioro u otfiHM/JHMinoro, BbiHaino^i (although o was often writtenphonetically in thislast positionin Middle Russian,too), 3 < *jbz,bin 3 CfcBCKa,3 CfcHM (several times), 3 Ka3MKe/?MeHa,as well as 3 forct> in front of voicelessvowels and sonorants,as in 3 npncAaHHbwz>[...] ToyiManeivnj,3 cum?}amctomtj, 3 HMMMj finally, hardened r in BHyTpt>, but retainedsoft ť in
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LINGUISTICANALYSIS OF MAZEPA'SUNIVERSALS AND LETTERS 403 remapa. Evenb foretymological Zoccurs in thespelling of noBirfezžiiioro. East Slaviccontinuants of the *CbjV~ group are reflectedin thespellings CTapaHi>e, 3anopo>Kbe,AOHecew&H (genitive singular), no npedAo^eH-bio,o BwcAaHTjio, o [...] noBo^eH-bio,CTapaHTjeMt; the typically Ukrainian spelling is encountered in 3 3anopo^fH,while the ChurchSlavonic reflex i occurs exclusivelyin the Russianname BacMAïh BacMAÏeBMHa.The wordrAe is writtenwith -e, not -13. The followingmorphological features are noteworthy:the locative ending -u ofthe soft neuter stem in o BwcAaH-bioand o.^noBOiKeH'tK)(some hard-stem masculinenouns show the locative singular ending -w, cf. o wcicywith a velar consonantand 0...0Kynyin the same syntagm);24the shortadjectival form cnocoöeHT)in thepredicate (which was in generalalready quite rarely used in LateMiddle Ukrainian texts); the comparative form Bbiinew;25 the forms of the personalpronouns MeHe and ce6e; thelong neuter form of the pronoun Toe(>icb) and itsinstrumental form tmmtj [tym]; the personal form in pasttense verbs, as in npMKAaAaAeMT),aojkmacmtí, BbinpaBMAeAf# 6wat>, nwcaAeMij, etc.; and the remotepast tenseform, as in BbiHamo^im BbicAaAb 6biAb and BbinpaBHAe;w& 6biAT).Two prepositionalconstructions are noteworthyat thesyntactic level: the frequentnon-limitative ao + genitive,as encounteredin ao TaKoroA^Aa 6biAbcnocoóeHij, nMcaAeMT> ao aTaMaHaKoinoBoro and BwnpaBMAeM^ówat? o6omxi>OHbucb ao Cèhm3an0p03K0#, mao BeeròHw30Boro Bowcica, as wellas o + accusativecase withthe meaning of topic, as in ao 6en Ka3MKe/?MeH&CKoro o omnycKT)onbix ao KpwMynwcaAM. A numberof lexemesare characteristicof the Ukrainian(and oftenPol- ish) traditions,such as: npeMO»HOM"b(locative singular masculine); the title HCHeBe^MO>KHoroero mmaoctm (genitive singular) and the epithet mmaoctmbom (genitivesingular feminine); and o.^noBo^eHijio, bmb^a^tmch,BWHaino^i, cnoco6eHT>(cf. the remark for cnocoó-b above), odHocTawHyio, BbinpaBHAe;w&, nMAHO,nepeiiiKO>KaAM, hcbo^hhkobT), amctt>, očmm/JHfcMiiioro, AOHeceH&n. MarkedlyPolish formsare noce^iCKwa;(a^at>) (genitiveplural, along with nocbuijjMKa,nocbUKy, cf. iiocoackmx a^atj in the letterto VasiliiGolitsyn), TeAbi,and Ky.Along with the genuinelyCzech PolonismBAacHe, nopadHe is encounteredas anotheradverb ending in -e. The conjunctionhko(^ct>) seems to be ratherbased on the Polishjako(z) than on ChurchSlavonic hko (>Ke) here,and the use of the conjunctionaio6o correspondsrather to thatof the olderPolish form lubo thanwith the older Russian ak)6o. The genuinelyPol- ish conjunctions>Ke and >Ke6bioccur alongwith a6bi, which was also used in Polish,but not in Russian,and hto6, whichwas encounteredin Ukrainianas well as in Russian.Finally, the noun mckt>as in o MCKymight be a loan from Russian(there is no entryfor mckt> or evennowcicb in SSUM or Tym). Russianand ChurchSlavonic elements occur sporadicallyin thenarrative partof the letters to thetsars. Along with the alreadyencountered titles, the syntagmija/?CTBeH2>Hbie öoAiime nenaTM from Vasilii Golitsyn's title with the
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 404 MOSER
Slavonicizingadjectival ending -hie (but not -bin) and b npwKa3MaAbw Poccïm, withthe Church Slavonic ending -bin, are noteworthy, but these forms are quo- tationsof Russian terms. More interestingare theverb coBOKynMBiiiM, which is markedas a ChurchSlavonic form by the vowels in theprefixes according to therules of the Second South Slavic Influence, and theform of the conjunction KorAa,which was (and stillis) widelyused in Russian,but not in Ukrainian. The lexemenocbunjMKa (genitive singular) is likelyanother genuinely Russian form.Finally, not only the lexeme yKa3(T>), but also theprepositional phrase no npeMO^KHOMT)BainoMTs ijapcKoro npecB/t>TA020 BeAMHecTBa yica3y are probably based on themodel of Russian.26 Apartfrom the adoption of some ready-made formulae and isolatedlexemes ofthe Russian chancery practice both letters are, however, still virtually unaf- fectedby the official language varieties of their Muscovite addressees.
Later Letters to Muscovite Addressees
As evidenced,e.g., by Tatiana Tairova-Iakovlevas original-based edition of Ivan Mazepas lettersto AleksandrMenshikov from the years1704 and 1705,the languageof the letters to Muscoviteaddressees remained basically the same.27 Elementsof Russian or ChurchSlavonic still occur only sporadically in typically Ukrainiantexts of the time. Especially as regardsthe letters to thetsars- or, since1696, to Tsar Peteralone- mostof the documents that can be foundin the editionsare stillnot based on originaltexts from the Hetmanatebut on theirtranslations into the Russian chancery language.28 This confirms, first and foremost,that Mazepa's letters to thetsars were still written in a languagethat was aliento Muscovitesand whichusually had to be translated. On theother hand, those few editions that seem to be based on theorigi- nal documentsdemonstrate that the language of Mazepa's lettersto thetsars changedright on the eve of Poltava.The followingletter, from a collection of copies of originalsthat once belongedto the historianand writerOrest Levyts'kyi,was writtenin September1706. Although the edited version is thus notimmediately based on theoriginal text, it is representativeof a numberof Mazepa's lettersto PeterI fromthe latter years of his hetmancy:
ÍIpecB-feTAtMiiiiMAep^BH^wuiiií /BeAMKÍH IocyAapb. HeToniioBeceAWMM ycTaMM, ho mcepAijeMT» MAynieio / paAOCTHO ijfcAyio6oroMT> yKpaineHHbiíí, bocbohcm B03/ BpaTMBiiiMMcn, BaniuIJ. Ilp. B.MOHapiniw CTonw, /KOTopiň paAw npeAMAymeii CAaBw mnoMHOxceHMH / BceMynpaBOCAaBHOMy pocciwcKOMy rocyAapcTBy / no>KMTKy, m AaAeHaMiiiiMCTpaHbi 3eMHbiMT> /m BOAHbiMb nyTeMb BAeiíí [sic, for BeAÍÜÍ -MM] noAarnaTpyAb, Bce/cepAeHHoio y6o noAAaHCKOK)B-fcpHOCTiio,
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LINGUISTICANALYSIS OF MAZEPA'SUNIVERSALS AND LETTERS 405
ÓAaronpMBfcT/cTByioBaMi>bcamk. rocApio B. LJ.lip. B. npeMMAOc/ TMBtííniOMyMoeMy coÓAaAaTeAio, Toro macAM/ßoro MÓAaronoAyHHoro, HaCBOM BbicoKÍM wnpecAaBHbiM /MOHapniMM npecTOAbi B03BpameHifl; m aceAaioBce/ijlJAO mctmhhwmt» paócKMMi» 5KeAaHieMT> Aa6bi bm / BeAMKiïï rocyAapbÕAarocepAbiíí MnpeMyApwM MoHapxa / BT>npeMHorÌMAfcTa, ÔAaroAaTÍK)6o>KÌeio, Aoöpe 3ApaBCTBOBaAM //m ÓAaronoAynHoe BOBceivrb npecAaBHoroMÕoroxpaHw/Moro CBoero i^apcTBÌH mm^am npaBAeHie. IloKopcTBeHHOoceMT> BaMi> B. T. AOHOiny,>Ke no/ mmaoctmbomt> BarneMT»LJ.rip. B. yica3y, nocwAaAb /HHapoHHO neAOBMKa [sic] CBoero bt> MyATHHCKyiom/ BoAOCKyK) 3eMAK), aah AOCMOTp-feHÍHnpn6pery Hop/ HoroMOpH npHAMHHbDCb npMCTaHMIIJT» MCAaAKMXT» BOA"b, / KOTOpblíí Hpe3T>HeMaAoe 6wtíh CBoero BpeMH, Ao6pe / noAo^ceHHKpaeBi» TaMOniHMX'bAOCMOT/ptBIHHCH, B03BpaTMACfl Ha3aA"b, MOTIIOBlSAaATj / MHt,TA'fe eCTb OTb TMpAa AyHaííCKOrO, AOyCTH p^KM / AH>fecTPa> a O"1"1» ToroycTH ao p'èkmBory m ao caMoro/ AnfcnpoBCKoro ÀMMaHy, TaKOBbiw yToroHopHoro Mo/pa npMCTaHMiija mCAaAKiw boaw. TaioKe m 3eM/ hwmt» nyreMT»Hpe3i> yBecb ByA^caKT» kt>Boaockoíí m / MyAbTHHCKOÍí 3eMA-feMi>, rA"ÈOÓpfcTaiOTCfl BbirOAHbIM /CTaHbl MHOHAerM. KOTOporO HeAOBtKa AK)6o Ha/Ae)KaAOmhIj nocAaTM bt> ijapcTByiomiíí rpaAb / MocKBy OAHaKO Tyio OHoronocbiAKy otaojkmacmtj //paAMToro >Ke BAaAMTeAb MyATHHCKiíí no MoeMy/npeAAO»ceHÍK) TaMOniHMX'b CTpaHi» MCKyHoro [sic, for ucKycnozo ? - MM] mbo BceMTj/Toro MopcKoro coctohhíh B^AOMoro KBaMT> B. Y: / BbinpaBMAbHeAOB^Ka, KOTOpblíí OTMXT> BCfcXT» AOMSBtCTÍH HaAOÓHbDCb BehextAOCTaTOHHbie BaMT> /B. Y.aohcctm Mo>Kerb. A hkmm tott> moíí no/CbIAHbIMHeAOBtK-b npMHeCA'b Mní OT BAaAfcTeAHMyA/THHCKOrO nncbMa,twm h TyTacenocwAaio / KBaMT>B. Y.ero >KenpeMMAOcepAHO MOHapinoM/ÓAarocTbiHt BcenoKopHO mh Bpynaio. B. 14Tip. B. / B-fepHbiíínoAAaHHbiM / mHM>KaMiiiÍM CAyra / Msam Ma3enaTeTMaHt. 3T>BaTypMHa cenTeMBpiíí.29
It is obvious at firstglance that this language is much closer to Late ChurchSlavonic than the languageof anyother text that we have analyzed up to now,as confirmedby the heavyuse of formslike hm^am(not m^am), tohík),B03BpameHW (accusative plural), ÖAaronpMB'feT/cTByio, 3ApaBCTBOBaAw, 6oroxpaHM/Moro(but stillnot -aro),oöpfcTaiOTCH, Aaöbi, the aoristnoAauia, etc.Owing to thearchaic character of the language, it is reasonableto assume thatthe prevailingconservative orthography of the edited textwidely cor- respondsto the original.Some deviationsare, perhaps,more questionable, but the spellingmacAw/ßoro is verywell knownfrom the East Slavicand, in particular,the Ukrainian traditions. The spellingsof neAOBHKa and BAaAMTeAb mightbe explainedas a Ukrainian-basedrendering of m for % and thespelling
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 406 MOSER ofyBecb is also wellattested in Late Middle Ukrainian (cf. the Modern Standard UkrainianyBecb), while other spellings, such as npeMHAOc/THBi>HinoMy and MOHapiiiOMor noAoacemiand ycra (2x) havealready been encounteredin the above-citeddocuments.30 A numberof word forms seem to confirmthat we are dealingwith a textthat was originallywritten by a Ukrainian:cf., inter alia, no>KMTKy(genitive singular), MoHapxa (nominativesingular, cf. Polish monarcha), BbiroAHbiw,HaAeacaAoj31 the twice-occurring adverb Aoöpe (end- ing in -e ); the locativeending -u afterthe velarconsonant in 6pery(instead oföpea'fe); the pronominal forms tmm, Tyio and tmxt>;the pronoun hkmm; the use of the non-limitativeao in o bchxi> ao msb^ctíhHaAOÖHbDCb Bemexi>; the twice-occurringconjunction (not particle!)>Ke and the past tense form OTAO)KMAeivn>withthe personal ending; and, finally, the rendering of the place oforigin in thisletter as 3i>BaTypwHa. Owing to the unfortunatefact that the historyof thistext is not entirely clear,one mightstill be temptedto question its authenticity,and the fact thatMazepa's laterletters to Tsar Peterare stillmarked as translations(cf. "KßeAMKOMyrcApK) bamct# reTMaH iicaBaAepa / ißaHaCTenaHOBuna Ma3enw / ...HanwcaHo,"ES, 149) mighteven confirm these doubts. It shouldbe noted, however,that the language of this document is veryfar from the typical lan- guage of the translations,which reveal only comparatively few residua from theUkrainian originals and are notcharacterized by such a strongand rather archaicChurch Slavonic layer. Moreover, the language of the September 1706 letterdoes notstand alone in thecorpus of Ivan Mazepa's officialdocuments. In SerhiiPavlenko's collection of documents from the period of Ivan Mazepa's hetmancy(DM) one findsmore letters with a similarlanguage, both letters to Muscoviteofficials of more or less equal status,e.g., letters to GavriilGolovkin (23 April1706, etc.), Vasilii Dolgorukii (4 February1707), or AleksandrMen- shikov(30 January1708, etc.) (all in DM, 222-48), and lettersto PeterI dated 11 February1706 (DM, 221-22), 22 April1706 (DM, 223-24), 23 September 1706(DM, 224-25), 24 February1708 (DM, 233-34),and 9 March2008 (DM, 237). Some ofthe letters to Peter,particularly those dealing with the affair of Vasyl'Kochubei and IvanIskra, are written in an evenmore archaized Church Slavoniclanguage, as representedby a letterdated 30 April1708 (DM, 238-39) and anotherone bearingthe date of 16 July 1708 (DM, 243-44). Althoughboth lettersare based on clearlyunreliable editions, the followingfragments with theirparticularly archaic forms, such as noBepr(as a past activeparticiple), ymeApaeniM,HeTpeõfc, eace, BMAfcCTa, Bocnpbmia, etc. give a fairlygood impres- sion ofthe language that was actuallyused in thesetexts:
Eoadeiommaoctíio IIpecB^TA-feííiiieMy mAep^aBH-fciiiiieMy BeAWKOMy IbcyAapK),LJapio mBeAMKOMy Khä3K) IleTpy AAeKCfceBMny, BceaBeAMKin mMaAbiH mE-fcAbiH Poccím CaMOAep>Kijy, mnponaa.
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LINGUISTICANALYSIS OF MAZEPA'SUNI VERS ALS AND LETTERS 407
MßaHMa3ena, reTMaH m KaßaAep3 BoííckomBainero LJapcKoro BeAMHecTBanoßepr ceófc npeA npecBfcTAfcMiiiMM Bamero ljapcicoro BeAMHecTBaMaecTaTOM, yctoiim Hör MOHapuiMx CMMpeHHO neAOM 6iio. Ha npaßeAeHOMMtpiiAfc BbicoKOAep^caBHOio CBoeioAecHMijeio coAepiimiirb, BarneiJapcKoe BeAMHecTBO, mmaoctt» [sic] m cyA, KorAa npaBAOio ce6*fc CAy>KamMXmB'fepHO paóoTaioiijMX MMAyeuiM mymeApaeiHM, HenpaBeAHfc >KeHanacTByiomiix m KAeBeTymwx A>Ky cyAMiiiM m OTMiijaeiiiM [...] HeTpe6"feMHfc 3Ah, ko yTBep>KAeHÌK)Toro, e^ce nwrny, MCKaTM MHornx AOBOAOB,BMA'BcTa 60 ohmmom, KaKO Barne I_(apcKoe BeAMnecTBO [...] npaBeAHbiMcbomm cyAOM cmmpma kacbcthmkom momx, KonyötH m 32 PlcKpy[...] BocnpiHinano a^aomcbomm CMeprayio KOHHMHy [...].
It can thusbe observedthat around 1706 the languageof Ivan Mazepa's correspondencewith Muscovites changed significantly, inasmuch as at least in some lettersit was increasinglySlavonicized. One mightask, therefore, whathappened in Mazepa's chanceryin 1706,and thenfind that something substantialchanged precisely that year, namely, that Pylyp Orlyk was appointed as IvanMazepa's new general chancellor (heneral'nyj pysar ).33 The later hetmán, who in thisfunction was responsiblefor the hetman'sinternal and external correspondenceas wellas forthe universais,34 had notonly studied at theKyiv MohylaCollege, but also workedfor some time as a secretaryof the consistory ofthe Kyiv metropoly, where he musthave acquired considerable experience in correspondingin ChurchSlavonic with the church authorities of Muscovy. Obviously,Orlyk subsequently transferred this ecclesiastical practice into the Hetmanate'ssecular correspondence with Muscovites, whereas the internal officiallanguage of the Hetmanate remained widely untouched by this develop- 35 ment.Orlyk's famous letter to StefanIavors'kyi of 1 (12) June1721, whichwas writtenin a verysimilar, archaizing Church Slavonic language, substantially supportsour thesis.
Conclusions
As an analysisof Ivan Mazepa's universaisdemonstrates (and as a studyof his lettersto Ukrainianaddressees would confirm),Ukrainian remained widely intactas a languageof internal administration until the end ofMazepa's het- mancy.Letters to Muscoviteswere usually written in essentiallythe same Late Middle Ukrainianlanguage and thentranslated into the Russianchancery languageof the period by translatorson the Muscoviteside. Althoughthe accessibilityof reliable source materials is stillnot satisfactory and ourpicture musttherefore remain rather tentative, it seems thata shiftoccurred in the practiceof the Hetmanate'scorrespondence with Muscovy only in 1706.At
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 408 MOSER thetime that Orlyk became Mazepa's generalchancellor, letters to Muscovite authoritieswere increasingly composed in Late ChurchSlavonic, while other documentswere still written in a languagethat had to be translatedin Muscovy "fromthe Belarusianscript"- thatis, fromUkrainian. It thusappears that not onlyin thesphere of ecclesiastically oriented high culture but also in the sphereof officialsecular correspondence it was Late ChurchSlavonic- and notthe Russian chancery language- which Ukrainians initially regarded as the primarysource for a commonlanguage with the Muscovites, despite the fact thatnumerous loans fromUkrainian and Belarusian,most of which were of Polishor WesternEuropean origin, increasingly entered the Russian language duringthe second halfof the seventeenthcentury and the beginningof the eighteenth.36 The Hetmanateand itslinguistic practices underwent substantial changes in thedecades afterthe Battleof Poltava,when the Ukrainian language tem- porarilylost its century-oldfunctions as an officiallanguage, while Modern StandardRussian evolved and spread throughoutthe elitesof the empire, includingthose of Ukraine. Generations later, however, when late nineteenth- and earlytwentieth-century awakeners began to reestablishthe functionality ofUkrainian in thesphere of administration, they were able to do thisin full awarenessof the formerstatus of their language, a statusthat had been fully grantedfor the last time during the hetmancy of Ivan Mazepa.
Notes
1. See,e.g., V. M. Rusanivs'kyi,Istoriia ukraïns'koï movy (Kyiv, 2001), 90; andthe scarceinformation inV. A. Peredriienko,Formuvannia ukraiins'koi literatur noi movyXVIII st. na narodniiosnovi (Kyiv, 1979), 55-56. 2. SeeGeorge Y. Shevelov, A Historical Phonology ofthe Ukrainian Language (Heidel- berg,1979), 570: "The prestige of the P languagein those areas which severed their politicalties with Poland was not undermined. P was continuously used in writing, ofteneven by the Orthodox high clergy (e.g., Lazar Baranovyč, and Polonisms were stillfashionable in thelanguage written and spoken by the educated. The main noveltieswere twofold: the vernacular... was broadly reintroduced inthe records ofthe local and central government, often comprising features of local dialects.... Thesecond novelty was increased contacts with R[ussian].M 3. Tat'ianaTairova-Iakovleva, Mazepa (Moscow,2007), 15-16. Orest Subtelny's editionof Ivan Mazepa's letters to AdamSieniawski gives a goodimpression of Mazepa'scommand of Polish and Latin. O. Subtelny,ed., On theEve of Poltava: TheLetters of Mazepa to Adam Sieniawski , 1704-1708 (New York, 1975). 4. OleksanderOhloblyn, "Mazepa, Ivan," Encyclopedia of Ukraine : The Internet Encyclopediaof Ukraine , http://www.encycl0pedia0fukraine.c0m/pages/M/A/ Mazepalvan.htm,updated 2008.
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LINGUISTICANALYSIS OF MAZEPA'SUNIVERSALS AND LETTERS 409
5. "BÍH3HclB KÍAbKa MOB (iCpÍM IIOAbCbKOÏ, MOCKOBCbKOÏ MTaTapCbKOÏ MOB, BÍH boaoaíbAaTMHCbKOK), ÍTaAÍiícbKOK), HÍM6L(bKOK) ň 3HaB c{)paHijy3bKy)." Oleksander Ohloblyn,Het'man Ivan Mazepa ta iohodoba (New York, Paris, Toronto, 1960), 19; alsoavailable online: http://litopys.org.ua/coss3/ohl06.htm (accessed23 February 2012);http://ukrainaforever.narod.ru/mazepa_ogloblinl.htm (accessed23 Febru- ary2012). 6. Tairova-Iakovleva,Mazepa , 15-16. 7. The abbreviationsgiven here refer to thefollowing sources: HU : Universaly ukraiins'kykhheťmaniv vid Ivana Vyhovs'kohodo Ivana Samoilovycha (1657- 1687),ed. I. Butych,V. Rynsevych, and I. Teslenko(Kyiv and Lviv, 2004); ML: Lysty IvanaMazepy 1687-1691, ed. V. Stanislavs'kyi (Kyiv, 2002); MU: UniversalyIvana Mazepy1687-1709 , ed. I. Butych(Kyiv and Lviv, 2002); MU II: UniversalyIvana Mazepy1687-1709 , vol. 2, ed. I. Butychand V. Rynsevych (Kyiv and Lviv, 2006); XU: UniversalyBohdana Khmel'nyts'koho , ed.V. Smolii et al. (Kyiv,1998). 8. See MichaelMoser [Mozer], 'Ukraïns'ka ( rus 'ka) versijaObshchoho Věstnyka zakonov"derzhavnýkh y pravytel'stva' (1849-1852 rr.), 'Věstnyka zakonov" derzhavnýkhdlja korolevstv" i kraěv" v" derzhavnôj dumě zastuplennýkh' (1870- 95/6rr.) i 'Vistnykazakoniv derzhavnýkh dlja korolïvstv i kraív zastuplenykh v raďi derzhavnij'(1895/06-1918 rr.)," in Prychynky doistoriï ukraïns'koï movy (Kharkiv, 2008),667-83. 9. Fora generaloutline of eighteenth-century developments, see MichaelMoser [Mozer],"Mova skhidnoukraïns'kykh hramot i dilovykh paperiv u XVIIIst.," in Prychynkydo istoriï ukraïns'koï movy, 280-302; and Michael Moser, "Russisch in derPrivatkorrespondenz ukrainischer Frauen aus dem 18. Jahrhundert," inDie rus- sischeSprache und Literatur im 18. Jahrhundert : Tradition und Innovation- Russkii iazyki literaturav XVIII veke: traditsiia i innovatsiia, Gedenkschrift fürGerta Hüttl-Folter,ed. J.Besters-Dilger and F. Poljakov (Frankfurt, 2009), 289-322. It shouldnot be forgotten atthis point that the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centurieswas a periodof time when Ukrainian and Belarusian employees of the Departmentof Foreign Affairs as wellas leadingclergymen fostered the spread ofnumerous Ruthenian loan words, many of which were of Polish or Western Europeanorigin, into Russian. At the same time, the Church Slavonic language of theMuscovite recension was heavily influenced by the Church Slavonic language ofthe Ukrainian recension (for a discussionof these developments, see Michael Moser,Die polnische, ukrainische und weißrussische Interferenzschicht imrus- sischenSatzbau des 16. und17. Jahrhunderts (Frankfurt, 1998), 9-46, andthe literaturecited there. 10. In theedition the word is renderedas aímaoctbžw:,which seems to be a mistake. 11. MU,97-98. 12. Thisbracketed question mark was introduced by the editor. 13. MU,533. ' 14. SeeSlovnyk staroukraïns koï movy XIV-XV st., vols. 1-2, ed. L. L. Humets'ka(Kyiv, 1977;hereafter abbreviated as SSUM); and Ie. Tymchenko,Materialy do slovnyka
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 410 MOSER
pysemnoïtaknyzhnoï ukraïns'koï movy XV-XVIII st., bks. 1-2 (Kyivand New York, 2002;hereafter: Tym). 15. Theform Hpe3i> from 1708, on theother hand, is notnecessarily marked as a ChurchSlavonic form. It is alsosporadically encountered, perhaps as an allegro form,in other Middle Ukrainian chancery documents (SSUM vol. 2, s.v. "np'fec'b"). Theprefix npe- with the metathesis may be ofChurch Slavonic (npecBfcTAbiíí) as wellas Polishorigin in Ukrainian (Polish pre- adjectival prze- is againlikely to be an earlyloan from Church Slavonic). 16. Z epistoliarnoïspadshchyny heťmana Ivana Mazepy , ed. V. Stanislavs'kyi (Kyiv, 1996;hereafter abbreviated as ES), 122. 17. SeeML, 248, 270, etc. 18. IzmaïlSreznevs'kyi, however, does not list the meaning of "translation," "trans- late,"etc., s.v. "cMMcaTM," "cbnwcbKt" (I. I. Sreznevskii,Materialy dlia slovaria drevnerusskogoiazyka, 3 vols.[Moscow, 1895-1903]). It shouldbe notedthat Ukrainianwas stillconsistently called Belarusian, while the term Little Russian wasapplied as a toponym,but not yet as a glottonyminthese texts. 19. Unfortunately,theeditor is ambiguous here. He states:"G KiAbKa yKpaÏHOMOBHMx Koniííi pHA opnrÍHaAÍB" (There are a fewUkrainian-language copies and a number oforiginals) and lists the two cited documents among several others. It is thus not entirelyclear in each case if one is dealingwith original documents or copies. 20. ML, 273-74.In hisedition V'iacheslav Stanislavs'kyi underlines letters that are clearlyrendered as ligaturesin theoriginal. Owing to deviatingrules in other editions,I italicize both omitted letters and ligatures here as throughout. 21. Ail, 271-73. 22. Thisconstruction was adoptedinto Russian at thattime; see Moser,Polnische , ukrainischeund weißrussische Interferenzschicht, 245-60. 23. Thisspelling is typicalof North Ukrainian; see Shevelov,Historical Phonology, 432. 24. As forthe locative of hard-stem masculine nouns, see V. Nimchuk,ed., Istoriia ukraïns'koïmovy: Morfolohiia (Kyiv, 1978), 98-101. 25. Butnot Bbiiiie; see Nimchuk,Istoriia ukraïns'koï movy, 377; cf. Polish wyž-ej. 26. Thecontext is ambiguous,though, because Russian no yica3yrenders no + the dativecase, while the adjectival forms in thepresent Ukrainian context suggest theinterpretation as locative. The syntagm no npedAoaceHtiokhh3h BacMAÏa BacMAÏeBMHaToAHi^biHa is less problematic; cf. Polish po przedlozeniuwith an unambiguousform of the locative case. 27. GetmanIvan Mazepa: Dokumentyiz arkhivnykhsobranii Sankt-Peterburga, 1687-1705,pt. 1, ed. T. Tairova-Iakovleva(St. Petersburg, 2007), 129-58. 28. Usuallythis information is found at the beginning or end of documents. See the editionof a letterto Peter I dated13 October 1705 in Doba heťmanaIvana Ivana Mazepyv dokumentakh, ed.S. Pavlenko(Kyiv, 2007; hereafter DM), 216-18, where a supplementto thedocument reads as follows:"B BepxynwcMa HanncaHo: 'K
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LINGUISTICANALYSIS OF MAZEPA'SUNIVERSALS AND LETTERS 4II
BeAMKOMyrocyAapio b AMCTy reTMaHa mKaßaAepa MßaHa GrenaHOBMna Ma3enw, KaKOBOnpMHHTO b TmkotmhIj, npe3 Kypiepa Ka6pnHCKoro, OKTaópn b 18 Aeirb [sic] 1705-roroAy, HanwcaHo'" (ibid., 218). Obviously, this is a noteby the translator. 29. £5,147-48. 30. Thespellings BAeiň and ncKycHoro are, however, likely to be meretypographical errors. 31. Thesewords were adopted into Russian at the turn of the eighteenth century from Polish,Belarusian, and Ukrainian. There is, e.g., no entry for BwroAbHi> orHaAOKaTM withthe present meaning in Sreznevskii, Materialy, but both words are included inWiesiaw Witkowski's dictionary ofPolish loans in Russian; Wieslaw Witkowski, Nowystownik zapožyczeň polskich w jçzyku rosyjskim (Cracow, 2006). 32. DM,243. 33. Between1687 and 1699 Vasyl' Kochubei had been one of his best known predeces- sors,while under his own hetmancy Semen Savych was to become one of his most famoussuccessors. 34. Basedon PylypOrlyk's diary, Tairova-Iakovleva describes how Orlyk wrote one ofMazepa's letters: "16 ceHTHÓpa 1707 roAa np0M30niA0 coóbiTne, o6o3HaHHBiiiee nepeAOM.Ma3ena no-npe>KHeMy 6ma b KweBe,HaÓAioAaa 3a cTpoMTeAbCTBOM rienepcKOMKpenocTM. OpAMK, HaxoAHCb b AOMe reTMaHa, no eronpnKa3y nncaA AAMHHoenocAaHMe k íleTpy. PaóoTa 3Ta 3aTHHyAacb ao hohm. TeTMaH npoHBAHA HeTepneHweHecKOAbKO pa3bwxoama m3 CBoeíí BHyrpeHHeíí KOMHaTbi, cnpaniMBan, CKopoam KOHei^, mo6t>hchhh, hto ecTb eme Apyroe agao..." (On 16 September 1707an eventtook place that signified a turning-point. As before, Mazepa was inKyiv, overseeing the construction ofthe Pechers'k fortress. Orlyk, who was at thehetman's home, on his order wrote a lengthyletter to Peter. The work dragged on intothe night. The hetmán showed impatience, left his inner chamber several timesasking whether itwould be finishedsoon, and explained that there was still anothermatter.) Tairova-Iakovleva, Mazepa , 195. 35. PylypOrlyk, "Istoricheskie akty. Pis'ma: Orlika k" Stefanu Iavorskomu [1721]." In Osnova:Iuzhno-russkii literaturno-uchenyi věstník , no. 10, 1862, 1-28. 36. See note9 above.
This content downloaded from 162.38.186.136 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:17:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions