Ivan Mazepa without myths and countermyths

If there are any figures in Ukrainian history who are destined to be interpreted and re-interpreted over and over again (as is the case with Napoleon in French historiography), the name of Hetman Ivan Mazepa surely tops the list. An unbiased and thorough analysis of what he accomplished and failed to do, as well as an in-depth study of Mazepa’s epoch (before the Battle of Poltava) are all the more important in late October and early November when we are marking the 300th anniversary of the military and political alliance with Sweden, a step Mazepa took to finally sever relations with Peter I of Russia, thereby determining Ukraine’s future for hundreds of years ahead.

This was the array of problems studied by the participants of the roundtable “Hetman Ivan Mazepa’s Political Action in 1708-09: Event, Historiography, and Historical Memory.” The roundtable was organized by the Institute of Ukrainian History at the National Academy of Sciences (NAN) of Ukraine and the Cossack Research Institute.

In his opening address Aca­ demician Valerii Smolii, the director of the Institute of Ukrainian History, stressed that time has come for concrete research instead of phraseology, however eloquent. Even the finest epithets will not advance this research an inch further. Of course, a lot has already been done along these lines: a database of historical sources is growing and the historiographic component is becoming stronger. Nevertheless, Smolii said, all of us must be self-critical and acknowledge that in Ukraine’s scholarly quarters the same amount of sources and the same assessments are in circulation and this is where the problem is. He went on to say that we have not as yet been able to piece together a big “political portrait” of Mazepa and that this a task to be carried out in the future.

Here historians are faced with a problem: either follow the traditional course in describing this figure (as was done by Mykola Kostomarov, Aleksandr Ohloblin, and a number of other outstanding scholars in the Ukrainian Diaspora) or adopt a thematic approach. Smolii asked the participants which questions about Mazepa they thought were least researched and then offered his answer: what has received very little scholarly coverage is, above all, Mazepa’s socioeconomic policy and that of high-ranking Cossack officers (starshyna) that were close to him.

He also believes that another equally important aspect is the motives behind Mazepa’s actions; this is a rather complicated issue which cannot be resolved by simply recounting the events at the beginning of the 18th century. It is important to ascertain the reasons behind Mazepa’s actions; personal and inner causes, considerations related to the construction of the state, or both.

Among other problems that, according to Smolii, remain to be solved are the attitudes of the public in Ukraine — people’s perception of Mazepa — when he was the hetman and in these days, as well as an analysis of the complicated relations between Mazepa and the high-ranking clergy. Why, after praising Mazepa to the skies, did they unanimously anathematize him the next day (after the events of late October and November 1708)? What was the reason: mere fear or maybe some other considerations?

The main point, stressed Smolii, is to get out of the vicious circle of erroneous oppositions: friend vs. foe and traitor vs. exemplary patriot. Such comparisons in regard to Mazepa appear especially banal and ridiculous.

Dr. Taras Chukhlib, Ph.D. (History), spoke about the problems with the political and legal status of the Ukrainian Hetmanate under Ivan Mazepa. He believes that there is a trend to ignore the fact that the Hetmanate was a polycentric state mechanism and that its history should be assessed not only within the boundaries of Left-Bank Ukraine (as has often been the case), but also Right-Bank Ukraine, the Crimean Khanate, and the Zaporozhian Sich.

As for Mazepa, Dr. Chukhlib offered this formula of present-day unbiased research: try to walk the fine line between myths and countermyths. He reminded those present of the well-known Kolomak Articles, the 1687 treaty between Ukraine and Mus­covy. One must clearly understand that Mazepa, his starshyna, and his army signed this treaty not with Peter I, but with tsars Ivan and Peter and tsarina Sofia (another important point is that this oath of allegiance was never renewed). Its text reads that Hetman Mazepa shall not commit “treason” by entering into alliances with the Polish king, the Turkish sultan, or the Crimean khan unless so authorized by the tsarist government. As you see, the Swedish king is not mentioned at all. Dr. Chukhlib, however, pointed out that he did not intend to justify Mazepa in any way for this is absolutely irrelevant and a task for journalists, rather than historians.

Dr. Oleksii Sokyrko said that unless Ukrainian historians break the circle of limited ap­proaches and concepts, the dilem­ma of whether or not Ma­zepa was a traitor will persist for another 50-100 years. Instead, one ought to ponder the fact that at the time when Mazepa was in office, Russia’s leadership understood an act of treason as committed against the monarch, i.e, the tsar.

In contrast to this, for the Cossack elite it was not about a commitment to a person, but rather loyalty or disloyalty to the Fatherland, not the monarch. Undoubtedly, for Mazepa (and also for Augustus of Poland or Charles XII of Sweden) there were no permanent and unchanging allies or friends (such was the Zeitgeist of the time). For all of them the notions of the state and Fatherland always came first. In view of this, the “fundamental” question of whether or not Mazepa was a traitor looks trite and naive at best.

Oleksii Sokyrko believes that two problems have to be solved in order to create Mazepa’s scholarly biography: (a) research a large number of relevant Polish sources while shedding light on Mazepa’s life before he became hetman, and (b) ascertain the political worldview of Ukraine’s eliete and analyze its perception of the state and its role in it.

Dr. Viacheslav Stanislavsky told the roundtable about certain aspects of Mazepa’s foreign political activities that had been kept in secret archives. The hetman had a permanent network of secret agents in Jassy, Bakh­chisarai, Istanbul, and the Nogai Horde. This enabled him to use to subtle diplomatic moves which were seldom sanctioned by Peter I. At times the Russian emperor was notified after the fact.

Dr. Olena Dziuba focused on the interesting question of whether Mazepa addressed any letters to Motria Kochubeivna. She believes it is hard to attest the authenticity of this correspondence, which was published in the mid-19th century (experts have expressed justified doubts and have not reached a final conclusion). However, there is no denying the fact that the hetman had deep and sincere feelings for the girl which caused a conflict between his feelings and his sense of honor.

Larysa Ivshyna, editor in chief of Den’/The Day, said she is convinced that the “Mazepa theme” has not been exhausted yet — as is convincingly evidenced by the roundtable — and that it also has a great potential for further research. This potential remains to be fully revealed, and it is important not only for researchers because the point in question is not what we are discussing, but also how we are discussing Mazepa.

She went on to say that all that the distorted, unfavorable image of him that has been accepted by part of our society is very damaging, so it is necessary to formulate accurate knowledge. The Day‘s initiative should be combined with that of the National Museum of Ukrainian History in order to proclaim 2009 the Year of Ivan Mazepa. In fact, this initiative is gaining supported in Ukrainian society, as evidenced by a letter from Chukhlib to The Day written on behalf of the researchers specializing in Cossack studies at the NAN’s Institute of Ukrainian History). This will help us learn much more about Mazepa’s epoch. Remembering the recent important international exhibit “300 Years at the Crossroads of History,” added Ivshyna, it is safe to assume that our task is not only to restore flags dating back to that period, but, most importantly, restore our knowledge.

Naturally, historical forums like the one mentioned above do not offer ready-made answers to all questions, including possible poignant ones, that pertain to Mazepa, his milieu and time, and his actions as the hetman. Rather, they leave one with a sense that there is so little we know about this man. But then, this is precisely the purposes of such gatherings, isn’t it?

An interpretation of Mazepa as a historical figure calls for modern approaches that correspond to the 21st-century realities in science and society. What does this mean exactly?

Dr. Taras CHUKHLIB:

“Above all it means that modern techniques that are used by historians in researching history should be employed. It is absolutely necessary to view the events of that period and the hetman’s actions through the lens of the worldviews upheld by the Cossack starshyna at the time. We need to understand their political culture: was it the culture of Central and Eastern Europe with certain guarantees of civil rights, or was it the Eurasian kind prevalent in Muscovy where even boyars who were close to the tsar referred to themselves as the tsar’s serfs, which they actually were?

“Therefore, the fact that the Left-Bank Hetman State was part of Muscovy since 1654 and under the tsar did not mean that the Cossack elite was prepared to renounce its political and cultural achievements linked to the Po­lish kingdom of Rzecz­po­spo­li­ta and, on a larger scale, with Western European culture.

“In other words, it is within this framework and in the context of these relations that we should assess Hetman Mazepa’s decision to no longer be a subject of Peter I. For the Cossack starshyna, this move was a self-evident necessity because it meant obtaining more rights and liberties. On the other hand, it was aimed at protecting the interests of all social strata, including petty bourgeoisie and peasants. This was in full conformity with European practices, as is vividly evidenced by the fact that since the early 17th century farmers had been represented in the Swedish Parliament, the Riksdag. And now compare this with the Muscovite tsarist model! Another interesting fact is that Mazepa and his starshyna appealed to the Treaty of Hadiach (1658) which seemed to have been half-forgotten at the time and provided for a tripartite division of the Rzeczpospolita into Poland proper, Lithuania, and the Cossack state.”

Dr. Oleksii SOKYRKO:

“This means a refusal to consider old, trite, senseless, purposefully generated problems. In regard to Mazepa, why should we deal with all these oppositions (friend vs. foe, traitor vs. patriot, state-builder vs. destroyer, and democrat vs. oligarchy’s appointee) that are unsubstantiated and make no sense even from the point of view of formal logic? I believe that what we lack in Mazepa’s image are his personal, purely human, inimitably individual features, as well as those of his close associates. In other words, what we have is a certain schematic portrayal (even if definitely positive), and this is very dangerous. Even when we talk about some political aspects of Mazepa’s relationships with Peter I and his “team,” here, again, we omit personal human aspects and the whole thing looks very abstract.

“Also, it seems to me that we lack a full understanding of the sources of Mazepa’s worldview, the conditions in which he grew up, developed his personality, and turned into a statesman. Here the point in question is not just Mazepa as a person, but also the way the entire generation of like-minded people (known as the Mazepists) developed. This generation played an exceptionally important role in Ukrainian history in the first half of the 18th century.

“Even if we disregard Mazepa’s associates who emigrated after 1709 (e.g., Pylyp Orlyk and Andrii Voinarovsky), we have to remind ourselves of the fact that the hetmans who came to power after the Battle of Poltava (e.g., Ivan Skoropadsky, Danylo Apostol, and Pavlo Polubotok) were all politically close to Mazepa. They had the same views, although they were forced to do something they loathed under Peter I’s reign of terror. In other words, Mazepist is a broad concept and this is something we should keep in mind.”