Epoch of Ruins, as the trial for Ukraine and its people. Getmanschina of Ivan Mazepa: from glory to disgrace or...

Having summed up Getmanschina period, Pereyaslav Rada and Ukrainian state creation by Khmelnitskiy, I would like to underline once again, that this event wasn't the evidance of despair or hopelessness (which is disputed among my colleagues), but was an embodiment of the state idea created by original «mighty small group», i.e. the group of educated foremen making the higher echelon of Getmanschina officials. It's interesting, that this «mighty small group», consisting of szlachta, received the Polish juridical education, with a bias on the government organisation under the Polish image, having considerable privileges from the Polish nobility, meaningly and consistently went for the liberation of the Polish dependence and moved on the east, to Russia.
Khmelnitsky's merit was that he, as the military leader, politician, statesman and the diplomat, managed to create spirit of unity at the foreman and to subordinate its specific princely mood to the state interests (so wanted to exclaim - Bogdan, come back ...).
Yes, the statehood of Ukraine was created, but, alas, it hadn't existed in that format that Great Bogdan left. As well as it was established in Ukraine (as well as in historical aspect, so in the modern variant of political life), there where «two Ukrainians, there three hetmen». After Khmelnitsky's death his yesterday's colleagues and fighting colonels - Vygovsky, Nemirovych, Mirovych, Teterya, Bogun, Gogol (the great-grandfather of Nikolay Vasilevich), Khanenko, Samoylovich, Doroshenko, Bryuhovetsky, Mnogogreshniy and others under the influence of both external, but more - internal reasons, entered an epoch of «ruins».
The modern historical science says, that «Ruins» - is the period in the history of Ukraine between 1660 and 1680, when Ukrainian territory lost the territorial integrity and actually appeared on the threshold of the civil war. Three of the strongest states of Europe of that time were: Russian, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Ottoman empire, and sometimes Sweden, to put it mildly, competed for the influence spheres in Ukraine, using the agent of influence agents among ruling elite and dissatisfied ones. And that's so as after Bogdan Khmelnitsky's death in Ukraine there was no national leader which power would be recognised by everyone. The power by right passed to his son Yury, but under the decision of the foremen Rada, on the far-fetched pretext, he had been sent for study to Kyiv, as in their opinion, he required an additional education, and Vygovsky became the hetman. Infringement of the power heredity principle induced a dissatisfied part of the foreman to the struggle for power.
So the encyclopaedia says. Whether everything is simple in the estimation of this terrible period? We will try to clear it up. In this matter professor of St.-Petersburg state university of Tairov-Yakovlev renders a very feasible help, personally to me. By the way, for her historical works among which «Getmanschina in the second half of 50th of XVII century», «The Reasons and the begining of Ruins», «Mazepa» Tatyana Gennadievna received an award of Princess Olga in the Consulate general of Ukraine in St.-Petersburg from the President of our country Victor Yushchenko ... I should say say, that again on the Ukrainian land there was no expert-Cossack in the questions of own history. Alas, everithing is according to Nikolay Alekseevich Nekrasov - thanks the Russian woman, who: «... Won't be timmed in the trouble, but will rescue; will stop the horse at the full tilt , and will enter the burning log!». But it's just a lyrical digression. There were and there are outstanding scientists-historians in Ukraine of the past and present (Kostomarov, Solovyev, Doroshenko, Shevchenko (Taras Grigorievich Shevcheno indeed), Grushevsky, Subtelny, Tronko, Tolochko and others. Therefore, certainly, we will study our history not slouching against the researches of one, though very courageous, Russian woman.
            1                 2
Well, to finish the encyclopaedic inquiry, we will add, that hetman Yury, Bogdana Khmelnitsky's son was, at last selected on Pereyaslav Rada. Some historians don't exclude, that it was made «on the direct pointer» of Moscow taking into account continuity and performance of Bogdan's will. But, already in 1660, after the unsuccessful campaign of the Russian armies to Lviv Yury Khmelnitsky, unexpectedly, both for the part of the foreman, and for the Moscow boyars, broke off the union with Moscow and signed Slobodishchensky treatise on which Ukraine was a part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as an autonomy. It caused ambiguous reaction of the Ukrainian people, and Ukraine was actually divided on the Right-bank under the Poland protectorate and on the Left-bank under the protectorate of Moscow. In 1663 Khmelnitsky repudiated the power and «Moscow protege» Bryuhovetsky was selected on Chernaya Rada as the hetman of the Left bank, and on the Right bank Teterya's power came.
But the encyclopaedia is thereon an encyclopaedic creation, as it: shortly, as if clearly, but not exactly, gives the definition of this or that event (the question is not not about the personnel).
At the same time, in Ukraine the period of statehood decline (they were, there are and ...Lord forbid! won't be...) are named by very capacious Ukrainian word «ruin». There is no direct analogue in Russian to this word. The nearest on value the Russian-speaking term "breakup" which historians often use at the analysis of the civil war events, assumes everything, the change of the system, state system, economy destruction, but not the full wreck of the statehood. The Russian word "ruin" similar on sounding means ruins of any building, and construction. And the passed «Russian distemper», cannot be also applied to Ukrainian «ruin». The thing is that that in Ukraine, «ruin» in its any form comes at the occurrence of sovereign statehood. That is the feature of «national policy» - yesterday, today, and what about tomorrow?
Our "dear" Ukrainian «ruin» was ... the direct continuation of Cossack revolt under the guidance of... Bogdan Khmelnitsky, with the subsequent division of Ukrainian territory into Russian, Polish and Turkish parts. Any revolt in itself, as well as revolutions, bring a little good to the country and its people. For the Ukrainian lands «Cossack wars» poured out in catastrophic consequences, but because of the national leader, Bogdan-Zinovy's death. Its state system assumed comprehensible democracy of the foreman, the Cossacks part, instead of all Ukrainian people. And there is nothing surprising in it, there was only seventeenth century ... There was no question about special «Cossack democracy». After Bogdan Khmelnitsky's death there was a question who would be his successor. Khmelnitsky was going to base the «dynasty of Cossack governors» and wished to see his son Timosha as the next hetman. But he was lost during the Moldavian campaign. That forced Khmelnitskiy to make his unsophisticated in military affairs and unauthoritative son Yury as successor. However not all Cossack elite shared his opinion, and the «war of the Ukrainian parties» inflamed thereupon (which doesn't proceed today), each one wished to see their candidate as the hetman. War against Warsaw and Istanbul, in due course, turned into the war civil between the left and right bank of Dnepr. After the «war of parties» there was a division of the Ukrainian autonomy into the Polish, and Turkish, except Pridneprovye. That particular period of division-disintegration into some parts is suggested to be named as «ruin». It was the period when the power passed from hands to hands from one hetman to another, so often and for a short time, that historiography wasn't in time to «document» the activity of some boarding periods. Candidates of the «national leader» were compelled, in direct and figurative sense, to run for support both to one external force having certain power and to another, i.e. to Russian, Poles, Turks and Tatars. Already it is much told about artful huddles of Ukrainian history of past days. Though in understanding of that history opinions differ. Much more interesting, in my opinion, and according to the researches of my colleague, Sergey Lunev, to look for parallels in Ukrainian past which, will help someone to understand why actually Ukrainian statehood doesn't suffice for a long time. After all it is obvious, that there is something general and system, that starts to smother Ukraine as soon as it finds independence. And it happens not once nor twice for the last three hundred years. Well, it is really insulting - can it be true that except historian Litvina, there are no more politicians who have forgotten a key rule of the state system: «In the future through the past!».
And after the past of ours statehood, that each schoolboy knows, begins with the times of Kiev Russia. Let Kiev, but all the same, Russia.



There is the ancient Ros and its sources on the lands of Vinnitsa Nadrosye.
To understand the reasons of "ruin" and in historical perception to come nearer to that was occurred, we should probably understand what contradictions, actually, tore "Ukrainian", "Cossack" and «foremen» societies apart which in any way couldn't lead to consolidation of the foreman tops ,Cossack layer and broad masses. There are serious researchs, that contradictions concerned not so much Ukraine, as majestically-administrative institute and people (not only Ukrainians), occupying it, so contradictions in perception of the future device of Ukraine. I am also engaged in such researches and I'm not agree with a number of their positions (but not with all). After Khmelnitsky's death (the secret of its death till now is under historical signature stamp of «secret of centuries») there was a split in Ukrainian societies, as though, on two parts - on pro-Polish - Catholic and on pro-Russian - orthodox. Khmelnitsky was, in a certain measure, easier to supervise the "people's liberation" and Cossack movement against the Polish occupation, for reunion with Russian brothers on belief, but it was difficult for his associates to explain subsequently, i.e. during the Postkhmelnitsky period, why practices remained former szlachta, but the real reunion with Russia took place only on the paper. One of successful terms of Rada in 1654 was that Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth suffered from «not best times» of its history. And even the name to this epoch was, to some extent, thought up corresponding to Ukrainian «ruin» which Poles named as "flood". By the way, this time is perfectly displayed in the the same name film of Ezhi Hoffmann with, put on the motives of the novel with the same name of Henry Senkevich( not to confuse with an American-English film the "Flood", which motive differes from the first one «as two big differences»). Sweden took an advantage of their difficulties. Khmelnitsky couldn't stand aside of the Polish question decision.
So it worked out in the Russian (imperial) and Soviet historical science, that Pereyaslav Rada was presented, exclusively, as definitive reunion of Russian and Ukrainian people under the power of Russian tsar. Alas, this is an error. Rada was really core, but only the first step on the way to that unifying process. Bogdan Khmelnitskiy not only assumed, but also knew, that the period of full association would , minimum, occupy half of the century. Not casually he also hoped for inherited-majestic management which was continued by his son, not that indeed ... It is possible to discuss for a long time what obligations Yury Khmelnitsky had before Moscow, but there was no question about actionsin the prejudice of interests to whom you swore, continuing father's business. The question is that Khmelnitsky-younger and part of his foremen were not goingto be true to the given oath.
The history of Ukraine which became official today, from the point of view of our present hetmen, on many positions, especially regarding historical personnel, reminds me and my colleagues, as a matter of fact ... «the Short course of history of All-Union Communist Party» («CPSU History», «The history of party in events and persons». Please, readrer, don't be frightened, not in presentation of «supervising and directing», but in the context of its constant copying when the personnel were removed, then events (either were absolutely removed, or corresponded in absolutely opposite direction), then epoch-making performances (which ended by reprisals) etc. Well, and in the late eighties of the last century, there were «News of the Central Committee of the CPSU» which completely copied party history. That's what with the Ukrainian history today. Yesterday there was and there were one, today, accordingly others; even leading historians do not know what and who will be tomorrow, as there is still no«order from above».
I have resulted it for to addressing to the period of "ruins" and its fathers-heads, beginning with Yury Bogdanovich. Let's recollect a siege of Lviv by incorporated Russian-Ukrainian army when the army besieged and almost took it. However thanks to the big repayment, and with it Yury Khmelnitsky's unwillingness to be at war (if there is the repayment), Lviv was rescued. One month later as it often happened in history, there came the message, that Yan Kazimir, the person whom Khmelnitsky wished to see on the throne was selected as the king of Poland. The new king offered the hetman an armistice. But the armistice was the analogue of the modern life of Ukraine, something like «against whom we will be on friendly terms». Certainly, against Russia. Studying the history of "ruins" it is possible to pay attention to the fact that the ill fate hangs over our country. The acts of politicians of the past, step by step, word by word, intrigue by intrigue, remind acts of their modern descendants. The word, contract doesn't worth anything. So, judge by yourself. Yury broke off decisions of Pereyaslav Rada, which, subsequently, Vygovsky continued to destroy. But, any first-year student of Kyiv institute of international relations) will tell, that, from the point of view of international law, it was illegal. Judge by yorselves - Rada were accepted on the general Rada, having authorised Bogdan Khmelnitsky to sign the contract. It means, that it should be to terminated, only after gathering of Rada. It is similar to modern lawmaking when the Supreme Rada of Ukraine passes the Law, the President signs it, and then, after the publication, the law, comes into the force. And just imagine, that the President ceases to like the law at any stage, and he independently cancels it, all or some of its positions. The absurdity, the reader would tell. The reality of Ukrainian «the national policy», I would tell.

5        6        7

Fathers-founders of "ruins" - Yury Khmelnitsky, Ivan Vygovsky and Pavel Teterya (Morzhkovsky), as the representatives of the Right bank.
Not only self-interest, but also irrepressible thirst of the power stood behind their acts. And having achieved the power, politicians of «all times and the people» started to drag, in the power, policy, and exchequer etc. all the «dear friends», beginning from the relatives and edending... I cann't pick up the word. They are distinguished by absolute indifference to opinion of the people and their destiny. About that period you wouldn't tell better than Tairova-Yakovleva: «As hetmen often were natives from Cossack foremen and leant against its broad support, they did not only interfere with concentration of the power and riches in its hands, but also promoted it, generously distributing the lands and posts in every possible way. Becoming stronger, that new top deepened split of the Ukrainian society ...».
The destiny of "ruins" founders is also interesting. Yury ended the life tragically, killed by Turks in Kamenets-Podolsk in 1685, he didn't leave the tomb, as the corpse suffocated was thrown out in the river. Ivan Vygovsky, the author of the victory of Ukrainian-Tatar army under Konotop, also left in «the world of eternal memory» not by his will, he was shot in 1664 by Poles «for an enlightenment» to them.
Pavlo Teterya's history, the son-in-law of Bogdan Khmelnitsky and self-proclaimed Hetman of the Right-bank Ukraine was also not less tragic. As they say «there is one step from love to hatred», so it does in the politician yesterday, today, tomorrow ... After an oath of allegiance to Moscow,Teterya went over to the side of Poles, then to Moldavians, but, eventually. For treachery and treason in 1667 he was executed by the Left-bank Hetman(Malorossiysky Ukraine) Ivan Brjuhovetsky.
One stamp which I result here intrested me more as the historian instead of philatelist. Apparently, it was produced in 2002, by 340th anniversary of self-proclaimed Hetman Pavlo Teterya (but, without a mention Morzhkovsky). But it's not the main thing. Please, pay attention to all image: at the left there is Moscow where Teterya went by Khmelnitsky's order to agree about the brotherly union, on the right - a siege of nice hailstones of Chernigov by Poles and parts of Cossack armies of Teterya and Doroshenko. And in the middle there is Pavlo Teterya, as a symbol of "ruins". It's the paradox, indeed.
But, when the reasons of "ruins" are estimated and the analysis of consequences is given, it worth however, as well as in other researches, not to search for correctness only in one party, but to find that middle which can become arbitration refereeing in a historical sentence. In general, in my opinion, there are only two categories of profession which dare to begin research-investigation on «again opened circumstances».Well, these are professions of inspector and historian, in fact they are to define true and to estimate.
Therefore. Giving the original description of political creations for hetmen of the right coast of Dnepr and, accordingly, right-bank Podneprovye, probably, we should remind of Left bank Getmanschina affairs.
9                 10          11

Other fathers-founders of "ruins" - Ivan Bryuhovetsky, Petro Doroshenko and Ivan Samoylovich, as representatives of the the Left bank.

On the one hand, all of them were in friendly relations with the Russian. On the other hand - all of them were Hetmen, and as it is sung in the song of Leonid Utesov's performance, and that means ... So it means that each of them were to obliged to Bogdan Khmelnitsy by their position, but each one chose their way after his death. No, not Ukraine indee, but their own way.
Ivan Bryuhovetsky for a definitely long time was the senior servant at Bogdan Khmelnitsky, and "pluralistically" the chief of his protection. Distinctive line of Brjuhovetsky were, as full unscrupulousness and impudence in achievement of the purposes, so many vectors in external relations, that became the reason of his death. Under the influence of his foreman and, first of all, Petro Doroshenko, he decided from the protection of Moscow to become the sound Hetman of all Ukraine, under the protection of Turkey and the Crimean khanate (at that time Nogaisk khanate as independent one, already stopped its existence). Feeling fragility of the position, Bryuhovetsky surrendered. He betrayed Moscow and, besides, lifted the revolt of Cossacks against it. But the Left bank people didn't want not want to be under the yoke again, and Bryuhovetsky was killed by crowd in 1668.

The things were in a bad way at Doroshenko- successor of Bryuhovetsky, who decided to extend the power on the right coast. But, neither the Polish support, nor promises of Crimean khan, didn't help him to take hold at the power. The Ukrainian population of the right coast of Dnepr, ruined by the Crimean Tatars and Turks, passed to the Left bank. Its future successor, Samoylovich supported by Moscow voivode Romodanovsky, restricted the regiments of Doroshenko.
After new Pereyaslav Rada, when Khaneko, «under the numerous requests», laid down the fasces of Getmanschina and Ivan Samoylovich was, at first, recognised, and then proclaimed the hetman of both coasts of Dnepr, Doroshenko surrendered on favour to winners. Despite his treachery, he wasn't executed, and the crowd didn't tore him to pieces, though all territory subject to him as well as the people, were demolished at all. He was banished to the village Volokolamsk where he silently died in 1698. There is one more fact from his life which is known by many people, but, probably, not all. The wife of Aleksander Sergeevich Pushkin Natalia Goncharova was a great-granddaughter of Doroshenko, and one creation written by the great poet, was the family order, we will speak about it a little bit later.
Ivan Samoylovich truly served the Russian tsar and did not offend the citizens in vain. Moreover, at him the blossom of Ruthenia began, but... Again that notorious "but". There was a question about the Right-bank Ukraine which, still, was as a part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and on which Samoylovich "reckoned". Secret negotiations and the auctions, certainly, behind Moscow's back began. There are acknowledgement, as Samoylovich spoke subsequently, that one more historical character Ivan Mazepa was involved to that «the unreasoned decision» . But an essence that in 1687, Samoylovich was arrested, released from Hetman post and exiled to Tobolsk where he died in 1690. His sons had the same destiny.
There is one more feature. Three of them were united by one very interesting historical personnel - Ivan Stepan-Adam Koledinsky whom we will talk about, literally in twenty lines.
With Ivan Mazepa's ascension on hetman throne, the epoch of "ruins" nominally came to the end. Nominally, but not actually. In end of the «ruin» theme I would like to designate that aspect in hetmen activity of all coast, that their leaders of Getmanschina, in foreign policy questions, worried only about opinion that was caused by their acts in Europe. All repeatedly wrote vast letters to the Polish king or the Russian tsar. After rupture of the union with Moscow Vygovsky (after all, the former clerk of Bogdan Khmelnitskiy) wrote the vast reference to the European powers, explaining the reason of such act. Yury Khmelnitsky who in any way can't be named as supporter of the father's state idea, cared of Getmanschina prestige among the foreign states and long time explained impossibility of the union with Poland by the necessity to be as good as their word before other states.Teterya, Bryuhovetsky and Samoylovich, wrote letters both to Moscow, and Warsaw, to Bakhchisarai, and Istanbul, but absolutely opposite under the content in each addressee. Thus, speaking about state idea of Bogdan Khmelnitskiy, it is necessary to underline, that his most devoted supporters, didn't achieve full independence, but went by the way of external unions creation, looking for «favourable variants» which rights Getmanschina could provide in a possibly full amount. Contracts with Poland and Russia, concluded by hetmen most typical in the way of balancing between two strongest neighbours. Those contracts carried unconditional continuity and changed towards expansion or reduction of Getmanschina independence depending upon the military-political situation in which there was a Cossack power. But hetmen of Ukraine, for some reason forgot that balancing was never the reliable form of residing.
The epoch of "ruins" ended, Ivan Koledinsky's epoch began. More tempted readers will quite fairly object, who is Koledinsky, give us Mazepa! Both they, and me are right, as Ivan Stepanovich Koledinsky, Ivan Stepan-Adam Koledinsky, and Ivan Mazepa- is the same historical person.
I will tell fairly, it's easy, and heavy to write about Ivan Mazepa.The reason is that to the 300 anniversary of Poltava fight which played, I am tempted to say, enormous value in the life of Ukraine and Europe, I wrote that book.
It wasn't my "gift" neither to Ukraine nor to Russia, but simply objective (in my opinion) analysis of life and affairs of very disputable and inconsistent politician. Plus the three-century date from the day of Ivan Mazepa's death. I presented the book on March, 20th, 2009 in day of the 230 anniversary from the date of birth of the given historic figure.
Judge by yourself - young Polish gentleman, who got fine European education, appeared in the retinue of Polish king Yana-Kazimir, being not in ranks of the servant, but the officer of bodyguard, whom the life of the royal person was trusted in. But, his love affairs, instead of fidelity to "mother-Ukraine", became the reason of escape from Warsaw with a shame - flogged by most illustrious, but, excuse me, "cornigerous" sir, he was recognised as the derelict of the Polish beau monde.

Ivan Mazepa (on the engraving he is behind the king and queen lovely talking to a favourite) on one of the balls. As the king's servant, he was «the person approached to the emperor», but, he didn't avoid to coming nearer to favourites of the queen ...
17  18
Love affairs of Mazepa were not left «without attention» in the Polish national folklore. After years, Polish-Swedish trading firm released the paraffin ointment for jockeys with rather eloquent name "Mazepa". And that ointment was very popular among equestrians ... Certainly not on that horse, and not in such a kind, but still, Ivan ran. What is the quiestion about, the reader will ask. The answer -is about a love of petty intrigue young Polish gentelman Ivan with most illustrious pani Falbovsky. Long time szlachta laughed, as the angered husband, having learnt about Mazepa's love affair with his wife, which was well-known at the court yard, having caught the ardent lover, he ordered servants to strip him to the buff, and, having adhered to own horse facing the tail, started the horse up at full speed through a prickly bush. When the horse had ridden home, the servants not at once recognized their mister in hackneyed and blood-stained equestrian. Warsaw laughed at adventures of the "Ukrainian Casanova» that found an embodiment even in advertising of original production. Mazepa recovered after military execution, however, the way to society had been closed to him forever - Polish szlachta hated in their environment meanness and disgraces. Ivan ran away indeed. Not to Ukraine, but to the Turkish sultan and the Crimean khan. Further, the service to three hetmen -Teterya, Doroshenko and Samoylovich introduced serious corrective amendments in their activity, and in due course, in the life. Now Natalia Goncharovaya's "love" to Mazepa is clear on which fault Petro Doroshenko, her great-grandfather, was displaced. Motives on which Pushkin wrote "Poltava" are also clear.
Some historians-researchers, i.e. my colleagues, accept, that there are also opinions of contemporaries in that respect , that Natalia Goncharova's portrait was a copy of her great-grandfather's portrait. Judge by yourself. But, we will continue about Mazepa.
His lifelong hatred to Zaporozhian Host (since the times of his service at the court yard of the Polish king) became the reason of the arrest by ataman Sirko and, only Golitsyn's compensation rescued Mazepa from punishment. But there came nice 1687 for the young politician when under the influence of the same Golitsyn's support he became the Hetman of Ruthenia Russia-Ukraine and the Gentleman Imperial of the Majesties Zaporozhean Army. And with the young and vigorous tsar Peter's coming to the power, who in due course, became the First and the Great, the career of Ivan Mazepa, went uphill. Tsar Peter worshipped him, trusting him in everything, even counter to the proved denunciations. By the way, the word "denunciation" has nothing general with standard "denunciation" of the recent time. A denunciation in the beginning of the eighteenth century was the reference about the events, beginning the words: «I denounce to you, your Grace ...».
21              22           23
There is the same person on all reproductions and engravings. Yes, indeed, this is Ivan Mazepa.
The period of friendship of Ivan and Peter, was very favourable for Getmanschina and the foreman, but not for the Ukrainian people who got to the serfdom under the Polish former usages. Yes, the dear reader, at Mazepa the serfdom «on Polish manners» began. Certainly, it concerned only the poorest part of the people, i.e. «servile estate», not concerning the Cossack layer and, certainly, foremen. But in the days of the brotherly union, Kievo-Pecherskaya fortress was under construction, new educational institutions, houses state were opened (Moscow's money). The Orthodox Church when under Mazepa and Peter's decrees monasteries were erected wasn't also forgotten. And that was correct step, as the level of Catholic influence in Russia-Ukraine was still very high. It is necessary not to forget, that Ivan Mazepa as the brave and sensible soldier (as well as tsar Peter received the military education in Holland) took part in all Azov campaigns.
Northern war, i.e. the war of Sweden not only against Russia, but also against Denmark, Poland, Saxony and Silesia, came on Ukrainian land. Poland tormented, both from the north, and from the south, their political vector, as devices on tables. Yan-Kazemir, who left in the world of "eternal memory» had been replaced by Leshchinsky. There Mazepa's Warsaw education affected. And, again, in the life of the growing old lady's man, there was a woman, the princess Dolsky (or Dulsky), who reminded him about the love to the western life. But not only that. The Ukrainian people already understood, who Mazepa was and what he would bring to the people. Except requisitions and rackets, Mazepa imposed the tax on ...«the right to be true to him». i.e., If you gave compensation, you would be considered true to the Hetman. If you didn't give - you would be destroyed, as national hetman Paliy. Not casually, that he built new capital not in capital hailstones Kiev, but in Baturin. Today there was a new term in architecture «Mazepa's baroque» or «Cossack baroque». That is palaces and houses constructed in the days of Mazepa became the classics of architecture of the modern history. I understand, there is a classicism, there is a baroque, there is a cubism, but there are no them in the world with prefixes. It is a one more «national feature», isn't it?
Now about descending in hetman's life. I wrote the book Ivan Mazepa named «Anatomy of treachery or Judas way: from glory to dishonour» not casually. Why «treachery anatomy»? Because it doesn't happen so - one minute ago the person was true to you, and after sixty seconds, he betrayed you. Treachery, it the process too, but the process not only moral, but temporary. Judge for yourself, from July, 25th, till October, 7th 1708, Mazepa was the loyal friend and blood brother, and on October, 8th - already the traitor ... And anatomy, is just, a science about the structure and construction, including the structure of organism creation. Using that terminology, I 've seen, more precisely, have studied all process of Mazepa's treachery: fromTeterya and Samoylovich to Peter and Ukrainian people and came to conclusion, that there was the treachery. And not casually Iskra and Kochubey wrote denunciations to Peter. Not casually that Mazepa was present personally on their execution. And it is not casual, that Mazepa refused to head the army of Zaporozhean Cossacks for fights with Swedes on the Ukrainian land. It is also not casual that the advocate of Orthodoxy Ivan Stepanovich, easy beheld when the Swedish soldiers transformed temples into stables , plundered peasants, burnt small towns and villages. It is the repetition of Judas sin. On what Mazepa swore fidelity - on the sacred Gospel.
Nevertheless, the hetman under the influence of Warsaw court yard, in 1707, after defeat of Saxony and Poland in fights with Swedes, made up the decision to flop over. Denunciation of Iskra and Kochubey was far not casual message to tsar Peter, however, as we know, the immense trust and love to the Ruthenia hetman hadnt finished the decision of justice questions up to the end. Well, it's directly, as we have today - there are «dear friends everywhere» left, right and centre . Though, from the point of view of the deep analysis adhered by a concrete historical epoch, the person of Iskra and Kochubey also got under the friendly section of «dear friends». Together with Mazepa they wrote the denunciation on Samoylovich, together divided riches and chose the land in Baturin, raised children together: Mazepa raised alien children, Kochubey - his own kids. And, as it is fashionable to speak, please, be more detailed from this place, as it will be the question not simply about the children, but to be exact about one child, goddaughter of Mazepa, but what a girl!

24           25

What's with it? Motryona was pleased, that such influential person romanced her. The riches, erudition, manners - all that besoted the young girl. Mazepa knew how to step up... Tender words, gentle manner, compliments ... Parents could't but notice such relation of hetman to their daughter. Mazepa's courtings were not to their liking. When the hetman decided to woo to Motryona, he received resolute parents' refusal. After all Mazepa was Motryona's godfather who also could't be her husband - the church forbids such marriage. But the love wheel already twirled. Whether it was the love or not... The fact that after the courtship the life in the paternal house in Baturin became intolerable for Motryona Kochubey poured oil on flames. Reproaches of parents, discontent with her behaviour, secret letters with declarations of love from Mazepa broke off the heart of young girl. As a result -Motrya was concluded «under the home arrest». But Mazepa found possibility to send the letters to his beloved through the servant. Intolerableness of position strengthened especially hostile mother's relation to Motryona. And the girl dared to runaway from home. It was, of course, a reckless step. But Mazepa and Motryona, most likely, hoped, that Kochubeys would reconcile and would agree to marriage. Well, was it «love to the grave»? Alas, Mazepa chose another way. He made everything to "hush up" the scandal, and Motryona was bestowed in marriage for his companion. She married the person close to Mazepa - general judge Vasily Chuykevich. He was not the simple foreman, but erected for «true service» to the hetman in the rank of the regent of general army office, and then already became the general judge. Chuykevich, as well as Motryona, didn't leave the hetman up to the Poltava fight. As the true wife, she shared the husband destiny and was sent to the Siberian exile by Peter in December, 1710, despite «political rehabilitation» of her father (here whence the first decembrist came), where she apparently died. Here is the sad, but absolutely different end, than in Pushkin famous novel. And what about Kochubey, the reader will ask. Under the versions of some historians the "problem" with the daughter became the «cornerstone of criminal relations» of yesterday's friends, colleagues and relatives. The ending is known. But, there is also one more interesting detail, namely, what was then.
The monument at the station "Arsenalnaya" today. The very same is hundred years ago. Iskra and Kochubey are instead of the gun ...
But, before it, some words about that denunciation which played a fatal role in their lives. The denunciation, wasn't a secret, according to some historians. Mazepa, and Orlik, the main ideologists of possible political «reboot», perfectly knew, that Kochubey was the author of both first and second denunciations. As the first denunciation was directed to tsarevitch Alexey Petrovich (Peter's "love" to him was well-known). Alas, Peter didn't only believed to denunciations as trusted in Mazepa as in himself, but also "blest" the future traitor on of patriots' execution. That fact was proved to be true by Peter's letter to Mazepa .
The further destiny of Iskra and Kochubey, and also their families, was known to everyone. The only thing that is worthy is that Mazepa was personally present on execution, i.e. beheading both of them. Well, also that execution was made in that place where Russia arose - at the sources of ancient Russia. Today it is the area of village Borshchagovka of Pogrebishchensky area of Vinnitsa region. The presence on execution of "political opponents» is the destiny of Jesuits, and Mazepa was him as by his training (he ended Jesuit "High School") so by his inherently ...
But, their names in the history hadn't not remained forgotten, and, in due course, constantly became the "talk of the town". After Poltava fight, Iskra and Kochubey reputation, was restored, and the part of the property, was returned to the family of widow and their son, but only not only to Motryona. Then in the works of art and cultures, the celebration of noble feelings of true servants began and the gravestone on their tombs in Kievo-Pechersky Laura was founded. In 1908, to the 200 anniversary of Poltava fight, the monument to them was established. A considerable part of modern Kyiv citizens, and also the townsmen who have become inhabitants more recently, appointing the place of meeting around the metro station "Arsenalnaya" for best accuracy tell - «Let's meet at the gun».
Hundred years ago, to the 200 anniversary of Poltava fight in Kyiv, on the area the monument to «Iskra and Kochubey, who had given the life for the tsar», was erected to those heroes. Well, the new power in order not to clean such pedestal, put a mountain gun instead of the monument, as the sample of courage and firmness of Arsenal representatives in the struggle against bourgeois nationalists. It's clear, that Mazepa doesn't match for the role of the revolutionary in any way, so Iskra and Kochubey, all the same were lost for the tsar and empire that is why, they did not also fit to be the heroes. And the following historical paradox is that the street reckoning from the area of Arsenal Heroes, former Memories of Iskra and Kochubey, today received the name Hetman Mazepa Street. Having published the next Decree it remained to take out the decapitated remains of Iskra and Kochubey from the Monastery, also locating today on Ivan Mazepa street and to put a fat historical end on the heroes reputation, not being afraid to "be linked" with the favourite of Peter. It would be possible to put an end in the given section. However, against a feat of Iskra and Kochubey, who gave their lives for the tsar, I would like to recollect the life of one more historical hero, who also «gave his life for the tsar» - Peter Arkadievich Stolypin.

P.A. Stolypin during his stay in Kyiv visited Ikra and Kochubey's tomb in Kievo-Pechersky Laura. Five days later he laid down nearby them ...

29              30
 Iskra and Kochubey's tomb                             Stolypin's tomb is nearby
As one would expect, in the military actions of the Swedish invaders against the Russian armies, the hetman didn't find support neither among Cossacks, nor among the Ukrainian people. Instead of a considerable army on which Swedes counted on, Mazepa could expose only some thousands of Cossacks who ran up at the first possibility while the Ukrainian people exulted, rejoicing Peter's І victory near Poltava.


Charles and Mazepa observe the end of Poltava fight and their own end...
Mazepa's treason of motherland and Sovereign during military actions had not only moral, but also deep spiritual value as the oath of the fidelity on the Cross and the Gospel before the God given by him at the introduction into the post had been infringed. Having broken that oath, Mazepa sworn over the Lord, having separated himself from the Church, that is a great damnation for the believing person. The orthodox Church, declaring him an anathema only testified the fact, that came true. Thus, Mazepa finished the course of life not as the historic figure and the hetman, but as the villain, military criminal and the God-seller.

Church medal to "Judas".
There are some more words about Mazepa's affairs and its colleagues among whom the name of the political successor of the former hetman - Phillip (Pylyp) Orlik often flashes. With his name one connects acceptance of the first Constitution of Ukraine written already in duplicate - one in Latin and another, in Polish. Well the moment of acceptance of the given constitution is embodied in the picture exposed in Stockholm royal historical museum. If to look attentively, it is possible to see, that it was accepted out of limits of the Ukrainian earths and under the Swedish banners ...

Ivan Mazepa's descent ... And as a matter of fact, it serves him right...
To 200 anniversary of Poltava fight in Kyiv there was Peter the Great street, and in whose honour the new street appeared to 300 anniversary? Certainly, in Mazepa's honour...
Ivan Mazepa's name became the history not only "thanks to" his acts, but as we have already told, to literary works and arts in which he became the "protagonist". Mazepa's destiny was displayed in Pushkin, Byron, Hugo masterpieces. The pieces of music devoted, to some extent, to our historical hero among which - the program composition for the orchestra, alias musical poem "Mazepa" by Ferents List, written on the story motives of Victor Hugo in 1851, Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky's opera "Mazepa", also written on motives of the poem with the same name "Poltava" by Alexander Pushkin in 1883 are not less known. Two feature films were shooted about hetman Mazepa: "Mazepa" and "The pray about hetman Mazepa". Subsequently the image of Mazepa was reflected in creativity of many thinkers and writers, composers and masters of the fine arts. Except aforementioned Pushkin, Byron, Hugo, List and Tchaikovsky; also F.Volter, K.Ryleev, J.Slovatsky, B.Lepky, M.Staritsky, V.Sosyura, P.Sokalsky, O.Verne, A.Arhipenko and many others wrote about Mazepa and devoted their works to him. In the present Ukraine, Mazepa's name is extolled as the outstanding state, cultural and educational figure, his portrait (actually the prospective portrait of the hetman) is even represented on the monetary denomination, face value of 10 hrivnas. And what person actually Mazepa was?
Mazepa's epoch is connected, as with the "ruins" liquidation which consequences he liquidated, thanking to strong support of Moscow state, so the continuation of own people enslavement and manoeuvring in the foreign policy «to the blessings for». Today it is difficult to give an true estimation in full objectivity to his acts, without binding to principles of "political expediency".
Thanks to Phillip's (Pylyp) Orlik "memoirs" Mazepa's phrase said by him on September, 17th, 1707 reached our times: «Without extreme, last need I won't change my fidelity to imperial majesty.» Then he explained, what was that «extreme need»: «Until I see, that imperial majesty won't be able to protect not only Ukraine, but the all state from the Swedish potentiality». He had a grouch on Peter after the military council in Zholkv in March, 1707 on which the restriction of Ruthenia autonomy and hetman's independence was discussed. But he was all the same ready to wait to «extreme, last need» - until it became obvious, that Peter would lose the war. 1706 was the year of Russia political failures: on February, 2nd, 1706 Swedes inflicted shattering defeat of Saxon army, on October, 13th, 1706 Peter's ally, Saxon prince-elector and the Polish king August II refused the Polish throne in favour of the Swedes supporter, «newly-appointed» Polish king Stanislav Leschinsky and broke off the union with Russia. Despite the victory in the battle at Kalisz on October, 18th, 1706, Russia remained in war with Sweden in loneliness. During the same period, presumably, Mazepa planned the treason to Peter, possible transition to Charles's XII side and formation of independent possession from Ruthenia under the leadership of the king of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and protectorate of Sweden. The exact date of negotiations was unknown, but on September, 17th 1707 Mazepa "discovered himself" to general clerk Orlik, the unique person to whom he trusted.
On September, 16th, 1707 Mazepa received the letter from the Polish king, supporter of Swedes Stanislav Leschinsky where «Stanislav asked Mazepa «to begin intended business» when the Swedish armies would approach to the Ukrainian borders». It was obvious, that in the letter-instruction it was a question of beforehand thought over plan. In his confidential conversation with true Orlik Mazepa explained negotiations with Leschinsky by means of «exclusively military threat». He told, besides according to the memoirs of Orlik, the following «I will remain true to the imperial majesty, until I don't see, with what force Stanislav come to the Ukrainian borders and what successes of the Swedish armies in the Moscow state» will be. Thus, one year prior to transition to Charles' side, Mazepa paved the way that in case of need (as he said, «extreme and last need») that he was ready to come over to the side of the opponent if that won. Otherwise he was going to store fidelity to the Russian tsar, but with the «small reservation»: «Without extreme and last need I won't change my fidelity to imperial majesty».



The currency and nominal value are the same and Mazepa, for some reasons, is different. However, as well as in his life. Also there is nothing surprising that Mazepa appeared on ten hrivnas denomination, after all he loved "chervonets" so much ...
Обращаем Ваше внимание, что мнение редакции портала UKRAINE-IN может не совпадать с мнением авторов. На портале размещены статьи историков из разных стран, которые могут по-разному интерпретировать события. Также просим Вас воздержаться от агрессивных и нецензурных комментариев.
blog comments powered by Disqus

All articles