CHAPTER 9 the Zaporozhian host

Now we have to return to the lower Dnieper Valley and the Zaporozhian (Zaporogian) Host, the centre of the Zaporozhian Cossacks. We have to describe its socio-political system in the period from 1648 — when the Zaporozhians began their struggle against Poland with Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s Cossacks — up to 1775, when the Host’s destruction by the Russian Army put an end to its rela­tions with both Hetman Ukraine and Russia.

During Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s rule the Zaporozhians* role was not very active. We can believe the statement by this Hetman’s representatives in Moscow that at that time there ’’remained just a few people” in the Zaporozhian Host. But events in the following years caused a large-scale migration to the Zaporozhian Host by Ukrainian groups who were not satisfied with the policy and si­tuation of Hetman Ukraine. Already during Ivan Vyhovsky’s rule the Zaporozhian Host played an active role in the internal struggle in Ukraine. At first it sided with the regiments of Poltava and Myr­horod in their action against Hetman Vyhovsκy. In this struggle it tried to protect the interests of common people — ordinary Cossacks and peasants, and to enlist for this purpose the support of the Russian Government. In 1662 it came forward with its own "Zaporozhian Hetman” Ivan Brukhovetsky₁ who in 1663 was elected the Hetman of Left-Bank Ukraine. After Brukhovetsky’s death the Zaporozhians at one moment supported M. Khanenko₁ a vassal of the Polish state, and at another they helped Peter Doroshenko, who accepted their plan to convoke an enlarged ("black”) Cossack General Assembly.

Following the Treaty of Andrusovo between Russia and Poland in 1667 the Zaporozhian Host was left in a peculiar condominium (or, rather shared vassalage) of these two states, and it remained in this legal position till 1709.

During Samoilovych’s and Mazepa’s rule the Zaporozhian Host — admitting the failure of its efforts to prevent the growth of the new Ukrainian upper social class and the development of new social relations — avoided participation in the domestic affairs of Hetman Ukraine.

In 1708-1709 the Zaporozhians took part in the anti-Russian action of Hetman Ivan Mazepa and, after his defeat, moved to the Dnieper Delta, which at that time belonged to Turkey. In 1734 they returned under the protection of Russia and remained under this protection until 1775.

The legal nature of the Zaporozhian organization, especially in its external relations, was not the same in the different periods. We shall try to find a distinguishing feature of the Zaporozhian Host’s relations with Hetman Ukraine, Russia and Poland. In general — under the overall Russian-Polish condominium — it was the develop­ment toward increased independence from Hetman Ukraine. This development was completed in the 1670’s when the Zaporozhians shut themselves off in their own region, having only extraneous contacts with the government of Hetman Ukraine. The Zaporozhian Host preserved this position of a peculiar state-type organization, separate from Hetman Ukraine, in the following period. Only in Bendery in 1710, when the Ukrainian exiles were electing their new Hetman (Philip Orlyk), the Zaporozhians participated in this act of the internal policy of the Ukrainian Government in exile. They were mentioned in the ’’Constitution” adopted at the electoral assembly as an integral part of the Ukrainian state represented in the future Ukrainian parliament.

The legal nature of Zaporozhian relations with Russia and Poland before 1709 is a very complicated problem. Maybe we can find a key to its solution in the often repeated statement of that time that the Zaporozhians ’’obey the Hetman and are the subjects of His Majesty the Tsar (or the King [of Poland]).” The statement indicates the dual obedience and dependence of the Zaporozhian Host first, on the Ukrainian Hetman and, secondly, on the more removed sove­reigns of Russia and Poland. These relations could be defined as a form of direct vassalage to Hetman Ukraine, with a further and more general dependence on the Zaporozhian Host’s protectors in con­formity with the Treaty of Andrusovo.

In many aspects of its social, economic and constitutional deve­lopment the Zaporozhian Host differed from Hetman Ukraine. In fact, this dissimilarity explains its opposition to Hetman Ukraine and its condemnation of the new socio-political system (i. e., the rise of a new upper social class) which was developing and Crystalizing in the Ukrainian state. But these Zaporozhian protests were understood and supported only in the recently populated southern regions of Hetman Ukraine where social inequality was not much in evidence. The central and northern parts of the Ukrainian state differed very much from the social structure of the Zaporozhian Host and they could not react favourably to the programme of the Zaporozhian struggle without going back in their socio-political development.

On the other hand, somewhat later we can trace in the Zapo- rozhian Host itself the same process of social differentiation against which it so persistently struggled in the 1660’s and 1670’s. This deve­lopment lagged far behind Hetman Ukraine; we see its intensifica­tion only in the 1730’s, when the Zaporozhian Host resumed its old vassalage to Hetman Ukraine and, through it, to Russia. Up to the end of Zaporozhian history as a state-type body this process of social differentiation was shorter than that in Hetman Ukraine. It coincided with the transition of Zaporozhian economy from hunting, fishing, bee culture and cattle breeding to agriculture which began in the 1730’s and evidently strengthened tendencies to increase social dif­ferentiation and the development of more complex social forms.

The Zaporozhian territory was growing during the successive periods of Zaporozhian history. Originally an area of remote and poorly populated steppes, it grew with the process of economic development. Only in the north, where it bordered on the populated regions of Hetman Ukraine did it have permanent and fixed boun­daries along the southern banks of the Orel River.

In the eighteenth century the territory of the Zaporozhian Host which was called the '^,,Free Lands of the Zaporozhian Host” (VoVno- sti Viis’ka Zaporoz’koho) was divided into eight districts or palanky (sing, palanka). There were the following palanky: Samars’ka, Ko- dats’ka, InguΓska, Buhohardova, Orel’ska, Krotovchans’ka, Kal- miis’ka and Prohnoivs’ka. Each palanka was governed by a Colonel. This position, with the same name as the name of commanders and governors of Regiments in Hetman Ukraine, did not play the same role as its prototype in the Ukrainian state. That could be explained by the fact that the palanky were not such well established terri­torial and administrative units as were the Regiments in Hetman Ukraine. The palanka was rather an embryo of such a unit and, con­sequently, a Colonel of the Zaporozhian palanka did not have such broad and strictly defined authority and functions as his counterpart in Hetman Ukraine. Likewise he was not surrounded and assisted by such a number of officers as a Colonel in Hetman Ukraine.

The Zaporozhian lands were alloted among the squadrons (ku- reni, sing, kurin^,) of the Zaporozhian Host for hunting (land), fishing (rivers, lakes and ponds), and pasture (meadows). The division and distribution took place every six months and the kureni drew lots for the temporary tenure and use of each part.

The centre of the ’’Free Lands of the Zaporozhian Army” was on the Khortytsia Island (of the Dnieper River). It was called the Sich. Later the centre was transferred to the Buzuluk (or Bazavluk) Valley and still later to the Chortomlyk Valley. As there were no city-type centres and settlements in the Zaporozhian territory the Sich’s role as the regional centre grew especially important and that fact unexpectedly gave to a free steppe region a highly centralized form of government.

The Cossacks were the principal group of the Zaporozhian popu­lation. Their special characteristic was the rule of celibacy. In prin­ciple each Zaporozhian Cossack could not be married and was not permitted to have a family, at least in the Sich. This rule hampered and delayed the growth of population of the ’’free lands” and weake­ned the Zaporozhian Host. As a result in the later period it was interpreted in the way that women could not enter the Sich itself where the Cossacks lived in the barracks of the Zaporozhian kureni. However, there were many Cossack farms in the outlying rural districts where the Cossacks lived with their families and cul­tivated their plots. Only when they had to come to the Sich they had to leave their families behind.

While discussing the principle of celibacy many historians have compared the Zaporozhian system with the medieval orders of Euro­pean knights. Recently this comparison was made by Professor Borys Krupnytsky. In our opinion it is not always possible to compare the social phenomena of different historical periods. The orders of medie­val knights in Western and Central Europe were organizations of the feudal period, and the celibacy of their members can be explained by the fact that they were organized with the help of the church and had to carry out some church-inspired tasks, such as the conversion to Christianity of the non-Christian people, the recovery of the Holy Land, etc. A member of such an order was a kind of armed monk devoted to a holy cause.

We cannot find such religious implications in the position of the Zaporozhian Cossack, even if we cannot deny that the church inter­ests were very close to his heart.

Another special feature could be found in the elements of com­munal economy. We certainly cannot contend that there were no pri­vate property rights in the Zaporozhian Host. First of all it cannot be said about the ’’Free Lands of the Zaporozhian Host” where, as we know, there were many individually owned farms. In the Sich itself numerous and frequent cases of trial and punishment for theft show the absence of deliberate communistic trends and ideas. But there was a communal economy in the temporarily alloted re­gions, rivers and lakes and there was communal consumption of the products of joint fishing, hunting and bee culture by the Cossacks who lived in the squadron barracks.

Evidently we have to explain these peculiar forms and condi­tions by their origin in the unsettled regions of the remote steppe under the threat of Tatar raids in the early history of the Zaporo- zhian organization. At that time the groups of hunters and fishermen formed small communes, with combined action and communal con­sumption. Naturally, they could not bring their families into such a wild and desolate land. More interesting than the problem of the origin of the peculiar forms of life in the Zaporozhian Host is the fact of their stubborn survival in later and different times. Only in the eighteenth century do we see the gradual elimination of these old forms and conditions.

Were the Zaporozhian Cossacks a uniform social group or were there some signs of social differentiation? In our opinion there were some trends toward such a differentiation. Thus even in the late sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century we could find some records showing the existence in the Zaporozhian Host of a group of molodyky (’’young Cossacks”) and dzhury (orderlies) with the clear indication of their lower position in relation to the ordinary Cossacks. Later we frequently find the notes relating to the Starshe ã menshe tovarystvo ("senior and junior companions”). Evidently it was — more than mere descriptive terms — a sign of a process of social differentiation into two Cossack groups. When we come to the second half of the eighteenth century we find records showing the existence of the znachni kozaky (’’noble Cossacks”) or the znatni to- υaryshi (’’noble fellows”). Remembering the existence of the noble army fellows and their social position in Hetman Ukraine we can ask ourselves whether there also were in the Zaporozhian Host some elements of the upper social hereditary class, as in other countries? The materials for categorical answers are not sufficient. It is probably more correct to speak about trends toward the establishment of the upper social group of the ’’noble” or ’’senior” Cossacks, but the pro­cess of social differentiation was interruped by the destruction of the Zaporozhian Host in the late eighteenth century.

Does that mean that Zaporozhian society was not divided into distinct social groups? In the seventeenth century there were no hereditary social groups and this reflects the relative primitivity and simplicity of this society in the unpopulated steppe. But after 1734 — when the Zaporozhians returned under the protection of Russia and Hetman Ukraine and the numerous groups of Ukrainian peasants settled in the ’’free lands” — we can note some signs of a second social class. We say ’’some signs” because the legal limits of this differentiation still were not clearly established and the classes were not completely separated. The Zaporozhian Cossacks were clearly in a position superior to the peasants. Only they could parti­cipate in government, by attending meetings of the Cossack Assembly.

If we acknowledge the existence of hereditary Zaporozhian social structure we have to limit the number of classes to two groups — the Cossacks and the peasants. If a third social group of the ’’noble fellows” had developed, the Zaporozhian Host would have come closer to the European social structure of that time, and would have led to the enserfment of peasants by the ’’noble fellows” or ’’senior Cossacks.” History precluded this development by the de­struction of the Zaporozhian Host. The peasants were enserfed any­way, this time by the supporters and lovers of Empress Catherine II who were granted the landed estates in the former ’’Free Lands of the Zaporozhian Army.”

According to the data of 1762 there were in the ’’free lands” 33,700 Cossacks and 150,000 peasants. At the time of the destruction of the Zaporozhian Host there were close to 200,000 peasants. Before their enserfment some of them cultivated their own plots and had to pay taxes to the Zaporozhian treasury. A large number of peasants did not own their plots and were hired labourers or ’’Cossack hel­pers” (pidpomichnyky) on Cossack farms. They, obviously, were prime targets for future enserfment. Their dissatisfaction with their social position was demonstrated by peasant unrest in 1763-1769, The uprisings were suppressed by the Cossack units of the Zaporozhian Host.

The peasant class was not obliged to serve in the army; only the Cossacks did. To make up for this the peasants did not participate in government. They were also not allowed to reside in the Sich; the right of permanent residence belonged exclusively to the Zaporozhian Cossacks.

In starting to describe the organization of the Zaporozhian Government we have to stress the paramount role of the Cossack Assembly. In most cases it was called the ^,,Sich Assembly” (Sichova Rada) because, as a rule, it met in the Sich. The importance and authority of this organ far exceeded the significance of its counter­part, the Cossack General Assembly in Hetman Ukraine. The meet­ings of the later organ were not regular and in time they became rather rare, but in the Zaporozhian Host, the Cossack Assembly met very often, and at regular intervals. Thus the meetings for the distribution or allocation of land to the Zaporozhian squadrons were semi-annual, and annual for the election of the Sich Chief or Com­mander (koshovyi otaman). Besides, the relations between the Gene­ral Assembly of the Ukrainian state, on the one hand, and the Sich Otaman and the Sich Assembly in the Zaporozhian Host, on the other hand, were quite different. In the Zaporozhian Host the dominant position belonged to the Cossack Assembly. It elected the Sich Ota- man for a special term (one year) and could remove him before the expiration of this term. The Cossack Assembly could request accounts from the Sich Otaman or from the other Zaporozhian officers and could even force them to change their decisions or their policy. The Zaporozhian governmental system was thus close to a republic. Only in the second half of the eighteenth century we can note some signs of the strengthening of executive power in the Zaporozhian Host. The elections of Cossack officers were not at that time as frequent and regular as before, and some officers retained their positions for more than ten years. The downfall of the Zaporozhian Host, how­ever, precluded further development in this direction of the Zapo- rozhian political system.

The Sich Assembly was an organ of direct democracy, but the right to participate in its activities was enjoyed only by a single social group, the Cossacks. In principle all the Cossacks had to attend meetings of the Sich Assembly. In fact, only those who lived in the Sich₁ and some of those who resided in the ’’free lands” and knew about the meeting, participated in these sessions. There was no mini­mal quorum because there was no counting of votes. But all the same, if the attendance was small, the decisions of the assembly could be disputed by the statement that they were adopted by the ’’small number of Cossacks.” Participation of all squadrons seemed to be imperative for the validity of the Sich Assembly and its decisions.

The assembly was summoned by the Sich Chief and Zaporozhian officers, but it also could be convened against their wish by a group of squadrons or even by a significant group of the Cossacks. It was summoned by the sound of kettledrums. In the eighteenth century when the region of the ’’Free Lands of the Zaporozhian Army” grew more extensive and when many Cossack resided outside the Sich, the Sich Assembly was usually summoned by gunshots.

The meeting had the form of a circle. The Sich Chief and the Cossack officers were in its centre; somehow they directed the pro­ceedings. There was no orderly discussion of the agenda. The parti­cipants showed their approval or disapproval of proposals by the Cossack officers (or the other initiators of the meeting) by shouting, tossing their hats into the air, etc. There was no counting of votes. In principle the decisions had to be unanimous. ’’All the senior and junior companions gave their consent to this decision,” said the materials of that time. But in fact they were the decisions of the majority which drowned the voices of the minority. In some cases, when there was a relatively strong minority or when it stubbornly defended its position, the participants could come to blows.

The functions of the Sich Assembly included the election of the Sich Chief and Cossack officers, their removal, problems of war and peace, foreign relations and alliances, the distribution of land among the squadrons, and in some cases, legislation and the administration of justice.

If we compare this organ with the Cossack General Assembly in Hetman Ukraine — which as a matter of fact had originated from the Sich Assembly — we shall see that these institutions are similar in many aspects, although the position of the Zaporozhian organ was more influential and that allowed it to function during the whole period of Zaporozhian history, long after the General Assembly of Hetman Ukraine went out of existence. On the other hand, its proce­dure was simpler and less orderly and, we can say, less solemn; it was also attended by fewer Cossacks.

The Sich Chief (koshovyi otaman) was an elected governor of the Zaporozhian Host and the military commander of Zaporozhian mili­tary units. As a rule he was elected for one year but he could be at any time removed by the Sich Assembly. This position was usually occupied by an experienced and popular Cossack commander from an old and influential Zaporozhian squadron. A person could be elected to this post several times and there are quite a few instances of such practice. According to an old custom the candidate nominated for this post had to turn the nomination down several times, but, later, accept it, pretending that it was against his will. The rites of election included the smearing of his head with mud. The functions of the Sich Chief included command during military campaigns; military preparations in time of peace; civil administration; the trial of lawsuit; and in some cases, current diplomatic relations. The more important problems of foreign policy were decided by the Sich Assembly. The Cossack officers of the Zaporozhian Host had to obey him and carry out his orders, but they were appointed (elected) and removed by the Sich Assembly.

If we compare the position of the Sich Chief with the power and functions of Ukrainian Hetmans, especially at the time of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Ivan Samoilovych and Ivan Mazepa — we shall con­clude that the position of the Sich Chief was different in many aspects. His dependence on the Sich Assembly, the short term of his office and the possibility of his removal, all these bring the post closer to the chief executive in the republican type of government.

Only during the military campaigns was the Sich Chief’s power considerably extended; nobody could question his orders and acts of disobedience were severly punished. As a result, in time of war the rather unruly Zaporozhian Cossacks were a strong and orderly mili­tary force whose actions were significantly recorded in Ukrainian military history.

We have, however, to make some reservations in regard to the position of the Sich Chief when we turn to the eighteenth century. As we already said, there were at that time some signs of the consoli­dation and strengthening of the Zaporozhian Government. Among them was the rising role and influence of the Sich Chief, and that led to the re-election of some holders of this post for several years in a row.

As in Hetman Ukraine, the third organ of central government in the Zaporozhian Host was the Sich Officer’s Council. Professor M. Slabchenko mentioned in his works also the Council of Squadron Commanders. We cannot accept his view because as far as we know the squadron commanders always attended the meetings of the Sich Officers’ Council. It is true that some documents say that a certain decision was made ”by the Sich Chief and squadron commanders” but it does not prove that the other Zaporozhian officers (whose number as we shall see was very limited) were excluded from the discussion and approval of this decision.

Besides the squadron commanders, the documentary materials often note also the participation of the ’’senior Cossacks” in the meetings of the Sich Officers’ Council. Evidently they were the old, influential and experienced members of Zaporozhian society. It is difficult to determine whether some of them were elected representa­tives of ordinary Cossacks. We are inclined to answer in the negative.

The functions of the Sich Officers’ Council paralleled, or con­curred with, the functions and authority of the Sich Chief but, in general, it discussed and decided the problems of special importance (the most important were decided at the meetings of the Sich Assem­bly). The meetings were directed by the Sich Chief. They were not regular but, on the whole, quite frequent.

The Sich principal officers, i. e. the commanders and officials of the Zaporozhian Host, included the Sich Judge, Secretary (pysar) and Aide-de-camp (osavul). The Sich Judge was the most senior officer. Like the other Sich officers, he was an assistant to the Sich Chief, member of the Sich Officers’ Council, executor of the various assignments of the Sich Chief or the Sich Assembly. As the senior officer he was also the deputy of the Sich Chief during the latter’s absence. His special function, as we can see from the name of his position, was to try minor judicial cases which did not belong to the jurisdiction of the Sich Assembly or the Sich Chief. In the eighteenth century the Sich Judge often reviewed the cases which were tried by the colonels of the palanky or the commanders of Zaporozhian squadrons. His additional duty was to manage the armory.

The Sich Aide-de-camp had to carry out the assignments of the Sich Chief and the Sich Assembly. The majority of his functions were military and disciplinary. The Sich Secretary attended to the correspondence and records of the Zaporozhian Host. He directed the work of the Sich Chancellery. He also had to collect the taxes and supervise the treasury. All the Sich officers were elected, in principle, for one year. But quite often some of them were removed from their positions by the Sich Assembly before the completion of their terms if the Cossacks were not satisfied with their performance. In the eighteenth century the Sich officers quite often remained in their positions for relatively long periods.

When we come to the organs of local government we need not talk about the Zaporozhian palanky which, as a matter of fact, were established only in the late period of Zaporozhian history. We should rather talk about the organs of lower administration. In fact the Zaporozhian organization was a central framework of squadrons (kureni). But they were not the territorial subdivisions of the Zapo- rozhian Host; most of them were in the Sich itself. We cannot equate the Zaporozhian squadron to the Regiment or Hundred of Hetman Ukraine. The kuriri was the lower military, administrative and also economic unit of the Zaporozhian Host.

The kurin’ was the military unit which in the time of war fought under the command of its kurinnyi otaman (the squadron chief or commander). In the time of peace the Zaporozhian Cossacks were registered, on the permanent basis, as members of one or another squadron and were supervised by their officers. The squad­rons were also the economic (and residential) organizations — each of them received for exploitation during a special term some land, meadows and fisheries. The fishing, hunting, and stock farming was carried out jointly by the squadron Cossacks.

At the same time the term of kurin’ applied also to the barracks in the Zaporozhian Host where some of the Cossacks enlisted in this squadron resided. Others lived on their farms outside the Sich and some even had their own houses in the Sich. The kitchens of these barracks served the Cossacks the products of their joint hun­ting and fishing. The squadrons had their own property and the money acquired during the military campaigns was kept and control­led by the squandron commanders.

It was accepted for a long time that there were thirty-eight or forty-eight squadrons in the Zaporozhian Host. Later it was establi­shed that these were only the kureni that had their barracks in the Sich itself. In the eighteenth century a few existed outside the Sich proper. Professor M. Slabchenko counted sixty-nine squadrons but, it seems, that he included some military and administrative units which existed for only a short time.

There were usually several hundred Cossacks in each squadron. The squadrons were not equal in their numbers and their influence. The old and more prominent squadrons usually succeeded in electing their members to the positions of the Sich Chief and Sich officers.

The squadron Otamans (commanders) were elected by the squadron assemblies. In the Zaporozhian Host their position was very influential, including wide-ranging functions and many-sided activities. This influence corresponded to the significance of the squadron as the basic administrative and economic organization of the Zaporozhian Host. The squadron commanders had wide-ranging functions in the field of administration and police. They also were the judges who examined the less important lawsuits of the squadron Cossacks and tried them for minor offenses. At the same time they were the managers and organizers of the economic activity of their squadrons. Professor M. Slabchenko saw in the power of squadron commanders (as well as of the Sich Chief) some elements of a patriar­chal nature. We are ready to share his view. But in our opinion the elements of such patriarchal traits could be found in the first place in the rather simple and uncomplicated relations of the Zaporozhian frontiersmen, hunters and fishermen of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.

The circle of the organs of Zaporozhian lower government could be closed by the Squadron Assembly. It was a meeting of all the Cossacks registered in the squadron, the lower unit of Zaporozhian direct democracy. In accordance with the principle of the Zaporo- zhian mass participation, the Squadron Assembly was an active and important organ. It elected the Squadron Otaman and discussed and decided economic and administrative problems.