Reading Voltaire
On the surface, the overall assessment of Mazepa and his actions in the pages of the History is more negative than positive. To begin with, the anonymous author considers Mazepa an ethnic Pole (a nationality that he vehemently despises) whose actions are guided by wounded honor.
This is the leitmotif of the author’s treatment of the two Mazepa legends, one recorded by Voltaire in his 1731 bestseller, History of Charles XII, and the other preserved as part of Ukrainian lore. According to both legends, Peter I provoked Mazepa’s animosity by publicly humiliating him at one of his receptions. “The Czar, who began to be over-heated with wine, and had not, when sober, always the command of his passions, called him a traitor, and threatened to have him impaled. Mazeppa, on his return to Ukraine, formed the design of a revolt,” wrote Voltaire.Another version of this legend, apparently known to the author of the History of the Rus' from local sources, placed the same episode at a dinner hosted by Peter’s close associate Aleksandr Menshikov, whom the author considered a sworn enemy of Ukraine. According to this version, Peter slapped Mazepa in the face as a result of the conflict. “Both these stories, taken together, show the same thing—that Mazeppa had a most harmful intent, inspired by his own malice and vengefulness, and not at all by national interests, which, naturally, ought in that case to have moved the troops and the people to support him, but instead the people fought the Swedes with all their might as enemies who had invaded their land in hostile fashion.”9
Thus, the anonymous author basically accepted Voltaire’s interpretation of Mazepa’s actions as motivated by a personal desire for revenge. Writing after the French Revolution, the author was prepared to judge his protagonist’s actions by the level of public support that they generated.
Did he, however, approve not only the actions of the Cossack elites but also those of the popular masses? Throughout the History of the Rus', its author shows very little regard for the masses as such, and his assessment of their behavior toward the Swedish army in the months leading up to the Battle of Poltava is no exception.“The local people,” he declares, making little effort to hide his contempt for the unenlightened and savage plebs, “then resembled savage Americans or wayward Asians. Coming out of their abatis and shelters, they were surprised by the mild behavior of the Swedes, but, because the latter did not speak Rusian among themselves or make the sign of the cross, they considered them non-Christians and infidels, and, on seeing them consuming milk and meat on Fridays, concluded that they were godless infidels and killed them wherever they could be found in small parties or individually.” Thie masses emerge from this description as xenophobic, superstitious, and uncivilized, while the account itself exhibits all the characteristics of enlightened Orientalism.10
The anonymous author’s characterization of Mazepa as an irresponsible leader driven to avenge a personal insult is certainly full of contradictions. On the one hand, he denounces Mazepa’s actions in light of their reception by the Cossack elites (the Cossack Host) and ordinary people. On the other hand, he considers this reaction, especially on the part of the Cossacks, to be ill-informed, if not completely ridiculous. One way of explaining this contradictory attitude is to posit that the anonymous author inwardly sympathized with Mazepa and his cause, or, in Pogodin’s words, “loved Mazeppa” but found it difficult to reconcile his feelings with the image of the hetman projected by official propaganda, which had an influence on him. For a variety of historical and political reasons, the author may also have been reluctant to manifest his true thoughts and feelings in the matter. If that was indeed the case, what was the source of his “love of Mazeppa”?
It would be futile to seek the answer to this question in those parts of the History where the author assumes the role of narrator. Speaking in his own voice, the author is more critical than supportive of the old hetman. His attitude changes when he allows his characters to speak on their own behalf, shielding the author from direct responsibility for what he has written; after all, he is only quoting existing sources without endorsing their views. More often than not, however, those sources are of the author’s own invention, or at least a product of his heavy editing. This is particularly true of the speech allegedly delivered by Mazepa to his troops at the beginning of the revolt and cited at length in the History.