The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Forbidden Love: and the Author of the History of the Rus' Author(s): Serhii Plokhy Source: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1/4, 1709: THE BATTLE AND THE MYTH (2009-2010), pp. 553-568 Published by: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41756515 . Accessed: 06/10/2014 12:46

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 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Forbidden Love: Ivan Mazepa and the Author of the History of the Rus'

Serhii Plokhy

I loved, and was beloved again," says the Ukrainianhetmán, Ivan Mazepa, to King Charles XII of Sweden in Byron'spoem , which firstappeared in printin 1819.Although the king seems skeptical, the hetmán remainshopeful of convincinghim of the power of emotionsover human destiny."But all men are not born to reign,"declares Mazepa, "Or o'ertheir passions,or as you /Thus o'er themselves and nationstoo."1 Mazepa's stories of forbiddenlove, like the one retoldby Byronin whichthe youngMazepa was tied nakedto a wild horseas punishmentfor making love to thewife of a Polisharistocrat, or anotherthat portrays him as an old man fallingin love withhis goddaughterMotrena Kochubei, turned Mazepa intoan ideal hero of Europeanromanticism, an object of interestand admirationall overthe continent.There was one place in Europewhere admiration for Mazepa had sourcesother than the romantic sensibilities of the age. That place was . Atthe time Byron's poem was published,the men of Ukraine indeed were not bornto reignover themselves or theirnation. It would also appearthat they did nothave full control over their passions, for some of them maintained their admirationfor their long- vanished hetmán, Ivan Mazepa, despitetheir better judgmentand significantrisk to themselves. In Ukraine,admiration for the fallen hetmán came intodirect conflict with thesense of duty and loyalty to rulerand state.Tsar Peter I orderedthat Mazepa be anathematizedafter he learnedthat the hetmán had sidedwith Charles XII in thefall of 1708, in themidst of the Northern War. This anathema, repeated everyyear in the churchesof thevast empire,turned Mazepa intothe most hatedfigure of the Russian political and historicalimagination. The tsareven had an Orderof Judas made, intending to bestowit on theelderly hetmán once he was captured.Peter won theBattle of Poltava in June1709, but the hetmán was nevercaught. Instead, he became a symbolof treason to theruler and the state;an objectof government-sponsored hatred, association with whom was tantamountto sacrilege- a betrayalnot onlyof secularauthority but also of

This content downloaded from 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 554 PLOKHY theChristian faith. Admiring Mazepa undersuch circumstances was extremely dangerous,but not everyonewas preparedto cast aside the memoryof the old hetmán.2 In 1810,just over a centuryafter the Battleof Poltava,Oleksii Martos,a youngofficer in theRussian military and a descendantof an old Cossackfam- ily,visited Mazepa's gravein the Moldaviantown of Galati.Two yearslater his father,the celebratedsculptor Ivan Martos,best knownfor his statueof Kuzma Minin and DmitriiPozharskii in 's , unveileda monumentto CatherineII at theColumn Hall inthe same city. While the father celebratedthe empresswho had put an end to the existenceof the Cossack polityin Ukraine,his St. Petersburg-bornson tooka differentattitude to the imperialpast and its heroes.A fewyears after visiting Mazepa's grave,most probablyaround 1819, the year that Byron's Mazeppa was published,Oleksii Martosleft the following record in his memoirs:

Mazepadied far from his fatherland whose independence he defended;he wasa friendof liberty, and for this he deserves the respect of generations tocome.... He isgone, and the name of Little and its brave hasbeen erased from the list of nations, not great in numbers but known fortheir existence and their constitutions. Besides other virtues, Mazepa was a friendof learning: he enlargedthe Academy of the Brotherhood Monasteryin ,which he renovatedand embellished; he suppliedit witha libraryand rare manuscripts. Yet the founder of the academy and ofmany churches and philanthropic institutions is anathematized every yearon theSunday of the first week of Great Lent along with Stenka Razinand otherthieves and robbers.But what a difference!The latter was a robberand a blasphemer.Mazepa was a mostenlightened and philanthropicindividual, a skillful military leader, and the ruler of a free nation.3

The Puzzle

Martoswas not the only"dissident" who questionedthe officialline toward Mazepa and regardedhim as a protectorof the rightsand freedomsof his homeland.On 3 June1822 Mikhail Pogodin (1800-1875), a twenty-year-old studentat Moscow University,later a prominentRussian historian and one of theleaders of the Slavophile movement, recorded in his diarya conversation he had thatday about the prevailingmoods in "LittleRussia" - the former Cossack landsof Ukraine.

Nota shadowof their former rights remains among them now. The Little Russianscall themselves the true Russians and the others moskali. They

This content downloaded from 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FORBIDDENLOVE 555

do notentirely like them. Muscovy was thus something apart. They also callthe Old Believersmoskali. They love Mazeppa [sic]. Earlier they did notsupply recruits but [Cossack] regiments. Thus, there were regiments fromChernihiv, [Novhorod]-Siverskyi, andso on.That was much better: theywere all fromone region,and therefore more comradely, more in agreement.But now, someone from Irkutsk stands next to a Kyivite;a manfrom - next to onefrom Astrakhan. What is thesense ofit?4

What exactlydid Pogodin have in mind when he referredto the Ukra- nians' "love of Mazepa?" We'll answerthis question by takinga close look at his Ukrainianacquaintances and the views of historythey subscribed to. We knowthat Pogodin discussed Ukrainian grievances and aspirationswith AlekseiKubarev, his olderfriend and mentorat Moscow University,and with Kubarev'sclose friendMykhailo Shyrai, the son ofStepan Shyrai (1761-1841), a retiredgeneral, wealthy landowner, and marshalof the nobility of gubernia.It was fromthe younger Shyrai, also a studentat Moscow University and Pogodin'srival in the dissertationcompetition for the university'sgold medal,that Pogodin obtained the information on Ukrainianmoods and their "love"for Mazepa. The restof the conversation,as summarizedby Pogodin, focusedon "a certainSudiienko, who, holding no civic office,governed the whole townmerely by the respectthat he commanded,"and "Metropolitan Mikhail[of St. Petersburg],"who was "idolizedin Chernihiv."The impressions recordedby Pogodincame fromShyrai's family circle in Ukraine.The Sudi- ienkoswere related to the Shyrais,and MykhailoShyrai's father, Stepan, was closelyassociated with Metropolitan Mikhail Desnitskyi of St. Petersburg, formerlyarchbishop of Chernihiv, who had visitedhis familyestate in Solovo nearStarodub on severaloccasions.5 StepanShyrai was an importantfigure in Ukrainianpolitical circles of the firstdecades of the nineteenth century. A retiredmajor general who had taken an activepart in theRusso-Turkish wars under Aleksandr Suvorov, Shyrai was electedmarshal of the Chernihivnobility in 1818and spenta decade leading thestruggle for its rights and privileges.He became a strongcritic of the high quotasof recruits whom the serf-owning landlords were required to contribute to the imperialarmy. Shyrai was also well knownfor his storiesof the good old days.Around 1828, when he was aboutto leaveoffice or hadjust left it, the 67-year-oldShyrai, at odds withGovernor General Nikolai Repnin of Little Russia,took it upon himselfto disseminateto the widerworld arguably the mostsubversive text produced in nineteenth-centuryUkraine, a historyof the Cossacksentitled Istoriia Rusov (History of the Rus').6 Althoughthe manuscript is attributedto thelong-deceased archbishop of Mahilioů,Heorhii Konys'kyi (1717-95), and is supposedto havebeen completed in the late 1760s,its main ideas correspondclosely to the list of Ukrainian

This content downloaded from 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 556 PLOKHY grievancesrecorded by Pogodin. The author,whoever he was, and whenever he wrotehis text,believed that the Cossacks,or the "LittleRussians"- not the"Great Russians," or "Muscovites"-were indeed the true heirs of Rus' and bona fideRusians. He believedthat Rus' and Muscovywere different entities, dislikedthe Muscovites,and was a swornenemy of the Old Believers.The unknownauthor argues that the Cossacks had not receiveddue recognition forthe services they had renderedto theempire. There seems to be almosta perfectmatch between the views of the Ukrainian elites of the 1820sand the historicalmanuscript that popped up in thelibraries of local notablesaround thattime. Whether the History influenced the mood ofthe Chernihiv nobility or simplyreflected it, there is littledoubt thatthe workoffers unparalleled insightinto the historical views held by descendants of the Cossack officers of theHetmanate at a timewhen Ukrainian culture was enteringthe all-important stageof "heritagegathering," which led to the rise of the Ukrainiannational movementin themid-nineteenth century.7 Thereis, however, an importantproblem to be addressedbefore the thesis of a closecorrelation between the views of the Ukrainian nobility of the 1820s and thoseof the author of the History can be acceptedwithout major reservations. Thisproblem is expressedin Pogodin'sphrase about the Ukrainian elites' "love of Mazeppa."Unlike Pogodin's Ukrainian landowners, the authorof History ' ofthe Rus has an ambivalentattitude toward Ivan Mazepa and his actions, and his feelingsfor the old hetmánwould be hardto characterizeas "love"or admiration.Could Pogodinhave misunderstoodhis fellowstudent back in June1822 or exaggeratedwhat he had heardfrom him? Or didMykhailo Shyrai accuratelyexpress the views of his father's circle, and does theproblem lie with the authorof theHistory ? A firstreading of the History offers no immediate answerto thesequestions. Depending on thenature and circumstancesof the episodesdescribed in the book, its author can be eithercritical or supportiveof Mazepa, judgmentalor forgiving.He appearsto be seekinga balancebetween a franklynegative assessment of the hetmánand an apologyfor him. In the process,he createsquite a contradictoryfigure, who embarkson a dangerous path,"along which he was led byexcessive courage and extremebitterness into an immeasurableabyss."8

Letting Mazepa Speak

On thesurface, the overall assessment of Mazepa and his actionsin thepages ofthe History is morenegative than positive. To beginwith, the anonymous authorconsiders Mazepa an ethnicPole (a nationalitythat he vehemently despises),whose actionsare guidedby wounded honor. This is the leitmotif ofthe author's treatment of the two Mazepa legends,one recordedby Voltaire

This content downloaded from 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FORBIDDENLOVE 557 in his 1731bestseller, History of Charles XII, and theother preserved as partof Ukrainianlore. According to both legends, Peter I provokedMazepa's animosity bypublicly humiliating him at one ofhis receptions."The Czar, who beganto be over-heatedwith wine, and had not,when sober, always the command of his passions,called hima traitor,and threatenedto havehim impaled. Mazeppa, on his returnto the Ukraine,formed the designof a revolt,"wrote Voltaire. Anotherversion of this legend, apparently known to theauthor of History of theRus fromlocal sources,placed the same episode at a dinnerhosted by Peters close associateAleksandr Menshikov, whom the authorconsidered a swornenemy of Ukraine. According to thisversion, Peter slapped Mazepa in the faceas a resultof the conflict."Both these stories, taken together, show thesame thing-that Mazepa had a mostharmful intent, inspired by his own maliceand vengefulness,and notat all bynational interests, which, naturally, oughtin thatcase to have movedthe troopsand the people to supporthim, butinstead the people foughtthe Swedes with all theirmight as enemieswho had invadedtheir land in hostilefashion."9 Thus,the anonymous author basically accepted Voltaire's interpretation of Mazepa s actionsas motivatedby a personaldesire for revenge. Writing after the FrenchRevolution, the authorwas preparedto judge his protagonist's actionsby the level of publicsupport that they generated. Did he, however, approvenot only the actions of the Cossack elites but also thoseof the popular masses?Throughout History of the Rus , itsauthor shows very little regard for themasses as such,and his assessmentof their behavior toward the Swedish armyin the monthsleading up to the Battleof Poltavais no exception."The local people,"he declares,making little effort to hide his contemptfor the unenlightenedand savageplebs, "then resembled savage Americans or way- wardAsians. Coming out oftheir abatis and shelters,they were surprised by themild behavior of the Swedes, but, because thelatter did not speakRusian amongthemselves or makethe signof the cross,they considered them non- Christiansand infidels,and, on seeingthem consuming milk and meaton Fri- days,concluded that they were godless infidels and killedthem wherever they could be foundin smallparties or individually"The massesemerge from this descriptionas xenophobic,superstitious, and uncivilized,while the account itselfexhibits all thecharacteristics of enlightened Orientalism.10 The anonymousauthors characterizationof Mazepa as an irresponsible leader drivento avengea personalinsult is certainlyfull of contradictions. On the one hand,he denouncesMazepa's actionsin lightof theirreception by the Cossack elites(the ) and ordinarypeople. On the other hand,he considersthis reaction, especially on thepart of the Cossacks, to be ill-informed,ifnot completely ridiculous. One wayof explaining this contradic- toryattitude is to positthat the anonymous author inwardly sympathized with Mazepa and his cause, or,in Pogodin'swords, "loved Mazeppa," but foundit

This content downloaded from 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 558 PLOKHY difficultto reconcilehis feelingswith the imageof the hetmánprojected by officialpropaganda, which had an influenceon him.For a varietyof historical and politicalreasons, the author may also havebeen reluctantto manifesthis truethoughts and feelingsin thematter. If that was indeedthe case, what was thesource of his "loveof Mazeppa"? It would be futileto seek the answerto this question in those parts of the Historywhere the authorassumes the role of narrator.Speaking in his own voice,the author is morecritical than supportive of the old hetmán.His attitudechanges when he allowshis charactersto speak on theirown behalf, shieldingthe authorfrom direct responsibility for what he has written;after all, he is onlyquoting existing sources without endorsing their views. More oftenthan not, however, those sources are ofthe author'sown invention,or at least a productof his heavyediting. This is particularlytrue of the speech allegedlydelivered by Mazepa to histroops at thebeginning of the revolt and citedat lengthin theHistory. Itwas inthis speech that the author of the History gave Mazepa an opportu- nityto presenthis case. Thelong speech was allegedlydelivered at themoment, decisivefor Mazepa and his homeland,when the hetmándecided to switch sidesand join CharlesXII. In orderto maintainthe loyalty of his men, Mazepa had to convincethe Cossack Host of the justice of his cause. Mazepa (or, rather,the anonymousauthor) makes the fullestuse of thisopportunity to explainhis viewnot onlyof the revolt but ofUkrainian history in general.In his speech to the Cossack Host Mazepa emergesas a protectorof Ukrainian independence- therole ascribed to himby Oleksii Martos circa 1819. He also raiseshis voice in defenseof the ancientrights and freedomsviolated by the Muscovites,who allegedlydeprived the Cossacks of theirprior claim to the Rus' land,of their government, and ofthe very name of Rus' - themesthat, if one truststhe Pogodin diary, were dear to thehearts of the Ukrainian elites in theearly decades ofthe nineteenth century. Mazepa's call to armswas based on the dire circumstancesin whichhis fatherlandand the Cossack nation found themselves. "We standnow, Brethren, betweentwo abyssesprepared to consumeus ifwe do not choose a reliable pathfor ourselves to avoidthem," begins Mazepa's apocryphal speech, referring to thefact that two imperial armies were approaching the borders of Ukraine and thata clash betweenthem was all but inevitable.The hetmántars Peter I and CharlesXII withthe same brush,depicting them as tyrantswho rule arbitrarilyover conquered peoples: "Both of them, given their willfulness and appropriationof unlimitedpower, resemble the mostterrible despots, such as all Asia and Africahave hardly ever produced." The hetmánclaims that the victoryof either despot would bring nothing but destruction to Ukraine.The Swedishking would reestablishPolish rule overUkraine, while the Russian tsar,who refusedto confirmthe rightsand privilegesguaranteed to Ukraine

This content downloaded from 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FORBIDDENLOVE 559 in thetimes of Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi, has treatedthe Cossack nation and its representativesin autocraticfashion. "If the Russian tsar is allowedto become thevictor," argues the apocryphal Mazepa, "thenthreatening calamities have been preparedfor us bythat tsar himself, for you see that,although he comes froma lineelected by the people from among its nobility, yet, having appropri- ated unlimitedpower for himself, he punishesthat people accordingto his arbitrarywill, and not onlythe people's will and propertybut their very lives havebeen subjugatedto thewill and whimof the tsar alone." Mazepa'ssolution to theseemingly insoluble problem of choosing between the two despots was most unusual. He proposed to remainneutral in the conflictbetween them, but thatneutrality was of a particularkind. Ukraine wouldaccept the protectorate of the Swedish king and fightonly against those forcesthat attacked its territory, which under these circumstances could only be Russianforces. The Swedishking, along with other European powers, would guaranteethe restorationof Ukrainianindependence. Mazepa's speech, at once passionateand highlyrational, left no doubtthat he was actingin defense of his nation( natsiia), whichhe wantedto save fromdestruction and lead to freedom,restoring its independenceand placingit on a par withother Europeannations. Parts of his speech specificallycountered the arguments ofhis critics,including the anonymousauthor's own claimthat Mazepa had betrayedthe tsar for personal advantage. "And so it remainsto us, Brethren," saysthe apocryphal Mazepa to his troops,"to choose thelesser of the visible evilsthat have beset us, so thatour descendants, condemned to slaveryby our incompetence,do notburden us withtheir complaints and imprecations.I do nothave them [descendants] and, of course, cannot have them; consequently, I am notinvolved in theinterests of our descendants and seeknothing but the welfareof the nation that has honoredme withmy current post and,with it, has entrustedme withits fate."11 The textof Mazepa's speechin Historyof the Rus' is a productof historical imagination,but it is not completelydivorced from the realitiesof Mazepa's era. The referencesin the speech to the Swedish-Ukrainianalliance of the Khmel'nyts'kyiera find clear parallels in thepreamble to PylypOrlyk's Consti- tutionof 1711. The passagein Mazepa's speechin whichhe arguesthe need for secrecyand deniesany personal motive for switching from one rulerto another correspondsfully to theepisode described by Orlyk in a letterto Metropolitan StefanIavors'kyi in 1721.According to Orlyk,Mazepa toldhim in 1707:

BeforeGod theOmniscient I protest and swearthat it is notfor my privategain, not for higher honors, not for greater enrichment, nor for otherwhims of any kind, but for all of you who remain under my rule and command,for your wives and children, for the general good of my mother, myfatherland, poor unfortunate Ukraine, for the whole Zaporozhian

This content downloaded from 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 5ÓO PLOKHY

Hostand theLittle Russian people, as wellas forthe promotion and expansionof the rights and freedoms of the Host, that I wishto act, with God'shelp, in such a waythat you, with your wives and children and our nativeland, along with the Zaporozhian Host, do notperish because of theMuscovite or the Swedish side.12

' Mazepa s speech in Historyof the Rus presentsan imageof the hetmán thatnot onlydirectly contradicts the imperialdepiction of him as a Judas, a traitorto the tsarand his own people,but also departssignificantly from the image of him thatis presentedby most eighteenth-centuryUkrainian chroniclers.Writers of the firsthalf of the century,including the authorof the HrabiankaChronicle, preferred to steerclear of a detaileddiscussion of the politicallydangerous age of Mazepa, limitingthemselves to a fewshort, dispassionateentries on the eventsof 1708and 1709.Authors of the second halfof the century,including Petro Symonovs'kyi and especiallyAleksandr Rigelman,did not shyaway from the controversialtopic, but acceptedand promotedthe officialviewpoint in theirtreatment of Mazepa. Even so, the imageof Mazepa as a defenderof Ukrainian rights, which emerges- though notwithout difficulty- from History of the Rus, was notentirely without prec- edentin Ukrainianhistorical writing. We knowthat a textof Mazepa's speech circulatedin Ukrainein the first decades ofthe nineteenth century, but we do nothave the text itself: Dmytro Bantysh-Kamens'kyiwas promiseda copybut he neverreceived it. Neverthe- less, Mazepa's speech in Historyof the Rus' findsparallels in certainextant sources.The main pointsof the speech correspondclosely to the 's argumentsas summarizedin theBrief Historical Description of Little Russia . Thisnarrative- written, according to a dateon itstitle page, in 1789- is known todayin a copydated 1814. Its author claims that "Hetmán Mazepa undertook to make use of the continuingwar in Russiawith the Swedishking in such a way as to renouncehis subjectionto the Russiansovereign and establish himselfas an autocraticprince in the LittleRussian regions with the help of CharlesXII." The hetmán

suggestedto theLittle Russian officers, first, that Little Russia had been subjectedto destructionowing to thewar with the Swedes, not for the sakeof any interests of its own, but, in his opinion, even with impairment ofits liberty; second, that the sovereign, exhausting itwith taxes, would freelyabrogate the treaties whereby it stillprospered; third, that the presenttime offered a chance to thinkof the future; and, fourth, how difficultitwas, having become accustomed to liberty,to endurenever- endingbondage.13

This content downloaded from 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FORBIDDENLOVE 561

What was certainlynew in Mazepa's speech as renderedby the author ' ofHistory of the Rus was the eloquence and persuasivenesswith which the hetmánpresented his argument.Among the firstto be persuadedwas the anonymousauthor himself- assuming, of course, that he was notthe author of the speech,but the personwho citedor editedan existingtext. One can hardlyimagine that he wouldhave included such a textin hiswork if he were notat leastpartly sympathetic to Mazepa's argumentand, by extension, to the hetmánhimself. Through the mediumof Mazepa's speech,the anonymous authorgave voice to manyof his own ideas thathe could not expresson his ownbehalf. Despite the author's general verdict that Mazepa actedin hisown interest,many of the prominent themes in thehetman's speech are pickedup and furtherdeveloped in thoseparts of theHistory where the narratordoes nothave to hidebehind Mazepa in orderto expresshis own viewsand ideas. The themeof Ukraine's neutrality in theMuscovite-Swedish conflict became a touchstoneof the author's own reinterpretation ofthe Mazepa era,as wellas thebasis forhis rejectionof the anathema imposed on theold hetmán. Still,the strongest support for Mazepa's argumentis not expressedby the authordirectly but throughthe mediumof speeches by othercharacters, includingthe proclamation issued by Mazepa's allyCharles XII. The kingcor- roborateseverything declared by Mazepa in his own speech,and soundsthe same themesof struggle against tyranny and therestoration of Rus'/Cossack independence(samoderzhavie) as does theapocryphal Mazepa. Accordingto theHistory , Charles declares in his proclamationto thepeople ofUkraine:

TheMuscovite tsar, being an intransigentfoe of all the nations on earth and desiringto makethem bend to his yoke,having subjected the Cossacksas wellto hisdishonorable bondage; despising, revoking, and annullingall your rights and freedoms established by solemn agreements andtreaties with you, has forgotten and shamelessly contemned gratitude itself,held sacred by all nations, which is owedto you Cossacks and the Rus'nation by Muscovy, reduced to a nullityand almost to nonbeingby itsinternal conflicts, by pretenders, and by the , but maintained and strengthenedbyyou. For the whole world knows that the Rus' nation withits Cossacks was originally an autocraticnation - thatis, dependent on itselfalone, under the rule of its princes or autocrats....14 ' The authorof History of the Rus also givesvoice to the otherside, that of Tsar PeterI. UnlikeMazepa's speech and the proclamationof CharlesXII, Peter'smanifesto was not a productof the author's(or of a predecessor's) imaginationbut an actualdocument well-known in Ukraine.But theextract quoted fromit in the Historyis much shorterthan the one fromCharles's allegedproclamation, to say nothingof Mazepa's speech. The authorquotes

This content downloaded from 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 5Ó2 PLOKHY those partsof Peter'smanifesto in whichthe tsarguarantees the rightsand freedomsof Ukraine,not those in whichhe presentshis main accusations ' againstMazepa. In Historyof the Rus Petermerely defends himself against accusationsthat he violatedthe rights of Little Russia and promisesto protect thoserights in thefuture: "One maysay without flattery that no people under the sun can boast of such privilegeand libertyas our LittleRussian people, ' forwe have ordainedthat not one peniaz [smallsilver coin] be takenfrom it forour treasury,and we have made thisa testamentfor our successors"If Mazepa'sstatements are corroborated in History of the Rus' bythose of Charles XII, and vice versa,Peter's declarations are leftwith no narrativesupport or corroboratingevidence, and whatthe authorof the Historysays about the behaviorof Russian troops in Ukraineraises serious doubt about the validity ofthe tsar's statements. Judging by the space allottedto Mazepa and Charles on the one hand,and Peteron the other,to presenttheir cases, thereis little doubtthat the author's sympathies lay with the former, not the latter.15

Between Tsar and Nation

' Ifthe author of History of the Rus preferredto expresshis support for Mazepa's cause throughspeeches and textsattributed to others,he used his ownvoice to expresshis (and,by extension, his readers')loyalty to theRussian ruler and to declarehis supportfor Peter. Where the author speaks on his own behalf, he takesa position,which, unlike Mazepa's speech,does not tarboth rulers withthe same brushby depictingthem as tyrants,but differentiatesthem, favoringPeter at theexpense of Charles. It is notthat the author is uncritical ofPeter's actions, but he certainlyprefers him to Charles,whom he considers a frivolousadventurer.16 Thisbecomes especially clear in the author's treatment of Peter's attempts to reachagreement with Charles on theeve ofthe by sacrificing Russianterritorial acquisitions and claims,which the Swedishking brushes aside in humiliatingfashion. The followingpassage leaves no doubtabout the author'ssympathies in thisparticular case:

The Swedishking, drunk with the glory of a conquerorand withhis constantvictories, having rejected those offers [of peace], told those envoysof the tsarand foreignintermediaries striving to inclinehim towardpeace that "he would make peace with the tsar in his capital city, Moscow,where he wouldforce the Muscovites to payhim 30 million talersfor the costs of the war and show the tsar how and over what to rule."Losing hope of achieving anything by peaceful means after such a brutalrefusal, the sovereign began to rallyhis troops to theoutskirts of

This content downloaded from 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FORBIDDENLOVE 563

Poltava,and at the council of war that was held there, the whole general staffdecided to give resolute battle to the Swedes, come what may.17

Sympathizingwith Charles and Mazepa on thestrength of their arguments whileremaining loyal to theruler was no easytask, partly because theanony- mous authordisapproved of the tsar'smany actions and those of his Great Russiantroops. He assuaged thisdilemma by shiftingresponsibility to the tsar'sadvisers for those of Peter's actions of which he did notapprove. To judge by the textof theHistory , Aleksandr Menshikov was the mainculprit. He is depictedas theembodiment of absolute evil, especially in thevivid description ofthe Russian massacre of the defenders and peacefulinhabitants of Mazepa's capital,. The authorgoes out of his way to describethe atrocities carriedout byMenshikov's troops and to stresstheir commander's low social origins,apparently seeking not only to explainhis crueltybut also to distance himas muchas possiblefrom the tsar.

Menshikovassaulted the unarmed burghers, who were in theirhomes and had no part whatsoeverin Mazepa'sdesigns; he slaughtered themto a man,sparing neither sex nor age, nor even suckling infants. Thiswas followedby the troops' plundering of thetown, while their commandersand torturers executed the bandaged Serdiuk officers and civilauthorities.18

The loyaltyto the rulerexpressed by the authorof the Historydid not automaticallytranslate into loyalty either to the tsar'ssatraps or- an espe- ciallyimportant point for our argument- to his GreatRussian army and, by extension,his GreatRussian nation. This distinctionbetween the rulerand GreatRussia was not the anonymousauthor's invention. It had alreadybeen madevery clearly in SemenDivovych's Conversation between Great and Little Russia, writtenin 1762,shortly after Catherine II's ascentto the throne.The GreatRussia of Divovych'spoem was forcedto admitthat Little Russia was notsubject to her(Great Russia) but to theruler who governedboth polities. GreatRussia says to LittleRussia in thatregard:

I acknowledgethat I myselfam not your sovereign, Butour autocrat is ourcommon master. I do notdispute that he accepted you with honors; I see thathe oftenmade his own equal to yours. Butsay in peace, of which there was question above, Do youwin the war, supposedly, without my forces?19

The distinctionbetween Great Russia and LittleRussia allowed the author

This content downloaded from 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 564 PLOKHY of the Historyto take anothercontentious step and distinguishhis loyalty to the rulerfrom loyalty to the ruler'stroops. This distinction becomes par- ticularlyapparent in episodeswhere the anonymousauthor not onlyadopts a muchmore favorable attitude to theSwedish troops in Ukrainethan to the tsar'sarmy, but also contraststhe benevolence of the Swedes toward the local populationwith the harsh treatment meted out bythe Great Russians:

Theincursion of the Swedes into Little Russia by no meansresembled thatof an enemyinvasion and had nothing hostile in it, but they passed throughthe inhabitants' settlements and plowedfields as friendsand humbletravelers, touching no one'sproperty and committingnone of themisdeeds, licentious acts, and excesses of every kind that are usually perpetratedby our troops in thevillages on thegrounds that "I am a servantof the tsar! I serveGod and the sovereign on behalfof the whole Christiancommunity! Chickens and geese,young women and girls belongto us by military right and by order of His Highness!" The Swedes, on thecontrary, demanded nothing of the inhabitants and took nothing byforce, but wherever they encountered them, they bought goods from themby voluntary trade and for cash.20

In one case, referringto themassacres of Mazepa's supportersby the tsar's troops,the anonymousauthor even puts Russianpersecution of the Little Russian (Rus') nationon a par withits past persecutionby the Poles. His attributionof the cruelty of those massacres to Menshikovdoes littleto hide thefact that, in his mind,the Great Russian regime has provedas oppressive towardhis nationas was the Polishone, which created the first Rus' martyr, SeverynNalyvaiko. Describing the massacre of Mazepa's supportersin Lebe- dyn,the anonymous author writes:

Thatpunitive action was Menshikov'susual employment: breaking on thewheel, quartering, and impaling; the lightest, considered mere play, washanging and decapitation.... Itnow remains to consider and judge- if,according to thewords of the Savior himself, written in theGospel, whichare immutable and not to be ignored,"all blood spilled on earth willbe requiredof this generation"- what requirement awaits for the bloodof the Rus' nation shed from the blood of Hetmán Nalyvaiko to the presentday, and shed in great streams for the sole reason that it sought libertyor a betterlife in itsown land and had intentions in thatregard commonto all humanity.21

The figureof Mazepa, traitorto thetsar and defenderof Ukrainian rights, ' presentedthe author of the History of the Rus withone moredifficulty when itcame to theanathema declared against him by the official church. Mazepa's

This content downloaded from 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FORBIDDENLOVE 565 relationshipto Christianitywas a significantproblem that had to be dealtwith one wayor another,as itconstituted a major obstacle to thehetmán s historical rehabilitation.The authorof the History coped withthe anathema in a number ofways. Some of his methodsexemplify his Enlightenment-eratolerance of otherreligions, while others display his romanticreadiness to bend thefacts and inventstories if they fit his paradigm.The anonymousauthor rejects as a formof superstition the popular conception of the Swedes as non-Christians. He also brandsas fablesstories about Mazepa joiningthe Swedes in reject- ingOrthodoxy and desecratingOrthodox icons. Furthermore, he claimsthat Mazepa had neverspilled Christian - moreprecisely, Orthodox - blood. In all thesecases, the anonymous author is preparedto standup forMazepa, speakingnow in his own voice and not hidingbehind one of his characters. Withregard to thespilling of Christian blood, the author first makes the apoc- ryphalMazepa declareneutrality in his speechto theCossack Host, and then statesthat Mazepa had maintainedhis neutralityduring the Battle of Poltava, refusingto send his troopsagainst the tsar's army. If Mazepa's declarationof neutralitywas sheerinvention on the partof the author,his troops'nonpar- ticipationin thebattle was not.They were too insignificantin numberand too unreliablein militarytraining and politicalloyalty to be used in combat.This historicalfact is interpretedby the anonymousauthor in a waythat allows himto advancethe thesis of Mazepa's neutrality,thereby undermining official accusationsof political treason and betrayalof the Orthodox religion. Accord- ingto theauthor of the History , Mazepa and his troops

remainedat theircamps and theSwedish ones at all times,constantly avoidingengagements with the Russians and maintainingthe strictest neutralitytoward them, stipulated by Mazepa with the Swedish king and announcedin his declarationsthroughout Little Russia. For Mazepa, as everyoneknows, was a Christian,deeply pious, having built many monasteriesand churches at hisexpense, and he consideredita mortal sinto shed the blood of his compatriots and coreligionists, and he held to thiswith resolute firmness, yielding to no persuasions.22

The History'semphasis on Mazepa's supportof the Orthodox Church and theconstruction of Orthodox monasteries and shrinescorresponds closely to thetreatment of Mazepa byOleksii Martos in his memoirs and was probablyan importantelement of the Mazepa mythin earlynineteenth-century Ukraine. ' Martos,who was close to the authorof Historyof theRus not onlyin his assessmentof Mazepa butalso in histreatment of the Pereaislav Agreement of 1654and otherepisodes of Ukrainian history,23 may have had an opportunityto acquainthimself with the History between 1818 and 1821,when he was actively workingon his own historyof Ukraine. It is muchmore likely, however, that bothauthors utilized the same sourcesor reflectedthe same attitudesof the

This content downloaded from 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 566 PLOKHY

Ukrainiannobility (the Martos family, the Shyrais, and theanonymous author ' of Historyof the Rus eithercame fromthe Chernihivregion or had strong connectionswith it). ' In anycase, both Martosand the authorof History of the Rus are highly criticalof the anathemadeclared against Mazepa by the RussianOrthodox Church.The anonymousauthor characterizes the ritualdeclaration of ana- themaas "somethingnew that had neveryet existed in LittleRussia; something terriblethat was called 'Mazepa's companionto Hades."'There can be little doubtthat the authordisapproved of Peter'spresence at the ceremony,but, as always,he was preparedto shiftthe blame to one ofthe tsar's advisers, this timeFeofan Prokopových:

The numerousLittle Russian clergy and the GreatRussian clergy closestto theseborders, deliberately summoned to ,under the leadershipand inspection of the well-known bishop Prokopových, having constituteditself as a so-calledlocal synod, consigned Mazepa to eternal damnation,or anathema, on theninth day of that same November. This dismalceremony took place in the brick Church of Saint Nicholas in the presenceof the sovereign, with a largeassembly of officials and members ofthe public.24

In bothHistory of the Rus' and Martos'smemoirs, Mazepa emergesnot onlyas a defenderof the interests of the Little Russian (Rus') nationbut also as a proponentof its independence.The visionof an independentUkraine, admittedlyharking back to thepast, is presentedin theHistory as one ofthe goalsof Mazepa and his ally,Charles XII. It musthave been highlyconsonant withattitudes dominant in some segmentsof Ukrainiansociety, if Martos's memoirsare anyindication. Given that the anonymous author's main strategy was to convincethe imperialgovernment to treatthe Ukrainiansas equals, Mazepa'sreferences to independenceshould be regardedmore as a threatthan as a realpolitical program.

*

' The authorof Historyof the Rus was caughtbetween two contradictory imperatives-his loyalty to theruler and theRomanov dynasty conflicted with his clearadmiration for Mazepa as an embodimentof the Enlightenment ide- als of struggleagainst tyranny, defense of humandignity, and protectionof nationalrights. The solutionto thisseemingly insoluble problem was found in the conceptof the nation,deeply rooted in Ukrainianhistorical writing of the previousera. While the anonymousauthor of the History stayed loyal to the tsarin his descriptionof the Poltavaepisode and shiftedresponsibility forPeter's ruthlessness and crueltyto his advisers,he foundno difficultyin

This content downloaded from 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions FORBIDDENLOVE 567 denouncingthe tsar's Great Russian nation. If revolt against the tsar remained illegitimatefor the author, the struggle of one nationagainst another in defense ofits freedom and libertiescertainly did not.The anonymousauthor was still faithfulto JeanBodin's notion that only God could judge and punisha ruler, buthe was no less attunedto theideal ofnational sovereignty as promotedby theleaders of the American and Frenchrevolutions. In itsinterpretation of the Ukrainian past theHistory places the nation on a parwith the ruler. The Rus' nationof the History was firstand foremostthat ofthe Cossack officers and theirdescendants, but on occasionit could include thepopular masses as well.The authorof the History was dismissiveof people oflow social statusand criticalof the actions of uneducated peasants, but he had no qualmsabout using their deeds as an argumentin hisexposition when it suitedhis purpose.In his treatmentof LittleRussians and GreatRussians, theanonymous author was unquestionablyfollowing in the footsteps of Semen Divovychand his Conversationbetween Great and LittleRussia , but he was preparedto go evenfurther and treattheir relations as thosebetween separate nations,not just distincthistorical and legalentities. The anonymousauthor also emergesfrom the pages of his Historyas the firstUkrainian intellectual to strugglewith the notionof the religiousand ethniccloseness of Russians and .He recognizesthe depth of the cultural association between the two nations,but rejectsthe actionsof the popularmasses informedby thataffinity. Instead, he turnsthe affinity into his principalweapon, claiming Ukraine'shistorical primacy as the Rus' nation,attributing the Rus' name almostexclusively to his compatriotsand tryingto shame the Russianstate and societyinto granting equal rightsto theirLittle Russian brethren. Ifone judgesby History of the Rus' the Ukrainianelites of the earlynine- teenthcentury could not help admiringMazepa, despitetheir best effortsto remainloyal to themonarchy. Mazepa, however,never became an unambigu- ouslypositive character in Ukraine.Unable to resolvethe problem of Mazepa's disloyaltyto Peter,the eliteshad to conceal and qualifytheir admiration for thehetmán. After all, according to Pogodin'sdiary, the Chernihiv nobility not only"loved Mazeppa" but also admiredOsyp Sudiienko,a descendantof a prominentCossack officer family who in 1811donated one hundredthousand rublesto builda churchcommemorating Peter's victory at Poltava.

Notes

1. TheComplete Poetical Works of (Boston; New York, 1905), 409. 2. On theanathematization ofMazepa, see NadieszdaKizenko's article in this vol- ume. 3. A. I. Martos,"Zapiski inzhenernogo ofitsera Martosa o Turetskoivoine v tsar- stvovanieAleksandra Pavlovicha," Russkii arkhiv, no. 7 (1893):345. On Oleksii

This content downloaded from 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 568 PLOKHY

Martos,see VolodymyrKravchenko, Narysy z istoriïukraïns'koï istoriohrafiï epokhynatsional'noho Vidrodzhennia (druha polovy na XVIII-seredynaXIX st.) (,1996), 91-98. On IvanMartos, see I. M. Gofman,Ivan Petrovich Martos (Leningrad,1970). 4. Diaryof Mikhail Pogodin, Russian State Library, Manuscript Division, fond 231, ' vol.1, fols. 188v-189r. Cf. Nikolai Barsukov, Zhizn i trudyM. P.Pogodina, vol. 1 (St.Petersburg, 1888), 153. ' 5. Diaryof Mikhail Pogodin, vol. 1, fols. 188v-189r. Cf. Barsukov, Zhizn i trudy, 1:153; OleksanderOhloblyn, Liudy staroï Ukraïny (Munich, 1959), 155-57; "Pamiatnoe delo,"Osnova (July 1861): 41-74, here 52-53. 6. IstoriiaRusov ili Maloi Rossii : Sochinenie Georgiia Koniskogo, arkhiepiskopa Belo- russkogo(Moscow, 1846); Volodymyr Sverbyhuz, Starosvits'ke panstvo (, 1999),122-24; I. F.Pavlovskiy Poltavtsy : ierarkhi, gosudarstvennye i obshchestven- nyedeiateli i blagotvoriteli(Poltava, 1914), 38-45. 7. See MykhailoVozniak, Psevdo-Konys'kyi i psevdo-Poletyka (*Istoriia Rusov" u literaturii nautsi) (Lviv; Kyiv, 1939), 5-7; O. P.Ohloblyn, Do pytanniapro avtora "IstoriïRusiv" (Kyiv, 1998); Kravchenko, Narysy, 87, 101-57; Serhii Plokhy, Ukraine andRussia : Representations ofthe Past (Toronto, 2008), 49-65. 8. IstoriiaRusov , 200. 9. Voltaire,History of Charles the Twelfth, King of Sweden (New York, 1858), 127-28; IstoriiaRusov , 200. 10. IstoriiaRusov , 209. 11. Ibid.,203-5. 12. Pershakonstytutsiia Ukraïny heťmana Pylypa Orlyka, 1710 rik (Kyiv, 1994), iii-vii; see Orlyk'sletter to MetropolitanIavors'kyi in Osnova, no. 10 (October1862): 1-28;, The Mazepists: Ukrainian Separatism inthe Early Eighteenth Century(Boulder, Colo., 1981), 190. 13. "Kratkoeistoricheskoe opisanie o MaloiRossii do 1765,"Chteniia v Obshchestve istoriii drevnostei rossiiskikh , no. 6 (1848):37. 14. IstoriiaRusov , 209-10. 15. Ibid.,210. 16. Kravchenko,Narysy , 151, 154. 17. IstoriiaRusov , 214. 18. Ibid.,206-7. 19. SemenDivovych, "Razgovor Velikorossii s Malorossieiu," inUkraïns 'ka literatura XVIIIstolittia (Kyiv, 1983), 398. 20. IstoriiaRusov , 208-9. 21. Ibid.,212-13. 22. Ibid.,215. 23. Kravchenko,Narysy , 97. 24. IstoriiaRusov , 211-12.

This content downloaded from 43.252.249.176 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:46:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions