SECTION B the Hetmanate

The task of describing and evaluating the role and power of the Hetman, the head and ruler of the Ukrainian state, compels us to examine the basic characteristics of the governmental system of Hetman Ukraine.

A republic is usually a governmental system with rulers elected for a limited period; a monarchy is the rule of a person who comes to power by inheritance or is elected for life, as in the case of the (German) Holy Roman Empire in the Middle Ages, and Poland. In the last case the monarchic form of government comes close to the republican form, and they are differentiated by the head of the state’s tenure of office.

Thus, if we wish to establish the character of the Ukrainian governmental system in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, we have to determine whether the functions of Hetmans were tempo- ãàãó or permanent. For that we have to examine the relations bet­ween the Hetman and the other central political institutions. If these institutions exerted a decisive influence in the solution of the most important political problems, and if they could in a legal way depose the head of the state, we certainly have to do with a republican system of government. Such an order existed in the Zaporozhian Sich where the Cossack Assembly (Sichova Rada) at any time could remove the Zaporozhian leader and elect another.

We should not forget the origin of the governmental system from the Cossack organization of the preceeding period, in the first place, from the organization of the Zaporozhian Sich: the new state called itself the "Zaporozhian Army.” But under the new, more complex, and quite different conditions of a statelike organization these old forms of government had to develop in a different direction, and had to change in essence. In the Black Assembly — P. Kulish’s famous historical novel, this collision between the old and the new principles of government was vividly shown in the discussion bet­ween the old leader of the Zaporozhian Sich, Puhach, and Ivan Bru- khovetsky, the Ukrainian hetman. In Kulish’s novel the hetman tells the representative of the old traditions that times have changed and that the old form of Zaporozhian self-government (even in 1663 when the Zaporozhians gained a victory over their adversaries), could not be applied to the complicated government and complex political problems of Hetman Ukraine.

If we turn to the ’’Articles”, i. e. the treaties with Russia, which were constitutional charters for Hetman Ukraine, we find that these sources do not clearly show the nature of the hetman’s rule and his constitutional position. On the one hand, the Articles in general de­clared the free election of the new hetman after the death of his predecessor, thus indicating the lifetime nature of his position, but, on the other hand, some of them (in 1669 and 1672) envisaged the possibility of his removal by the Cossack General Assembly, with the consent of the Russian Government. We can find a solution to this problem in the facts of history. These facts show us that Bohdan Khmelnytsky ruled the country till his death. George Khmelnytsky, Ivan Vyhovsky, Paul Teteria, and Peter Doroshenko laid down their bulavas (bulava hetman’s mace) at the General Assembly and ’’thanked the Zaporozhian Army for the privilege of ruling it.” By this action they acknowledge the superiority of the General Assembly and the temporary nature of their office holding.

The governments of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Ivan Samoilovych and Ivan Mazepa were different. In the last years of his rule Bohdan Khmelnytsky did not convoke the Cossack General Assembly; Sa- moilovych and Mazepa ruled the country without convoking this body, they did not lay their bulavas down at these meetings and in principle their rule was lifelong.

The constitutional development of Hetman Ukraine thus shows a struggle between the two forms of the governmental system. Vyhovsky and Doroshenko (the latter known as ’’the son and grand­son of the Cossacks”) in this case represented the old Cossack tra­dition, in essence of the republican type. On the other hand, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Samoilovych and Mazepa were rulers of the monar­chical type. Peter Doroshenko’s struggle against Samoilovych inclu­ded not only contending political orientations and different ways of political development but, in some respects, it meant also a contest of the different forms of government. Samoilovych’s victory signified the triumph of the principle of monarchical government. If we count the years of the different hetmans’ rule from 1648 to 1708 — the year of the defeat at Poltava, i. e. the time when the Ukrainian state was not directly controlled by the Russian Government — we can see that out of these sixty ó ears, more than forty (i. e. more than two-thirds) belong to the period of Samoilovych’s and Mazepa’s rule and that phase of Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s government when this hetman did not convoke the Cossack General Assembly. This was the time when the Ukrainian political system had a rather mo­narchical character. This monarchial period coincided with a phase of relative peace and order. We can say that for its time and for the situation in Ukraine this monarchical-type government was an appropriate form of government. It was able to stop for some time the struggle of political groups which had pernicious effects in the preceeding period.

It is interesting to note that this monarchical form of the het- manate was directed toward its logical conclusion, i. e. toward a hereditary monarchy. We have in mind the efforts of some hetmans to pass their power to their descendants and relatives: Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s — to his sons Timothy and, later, George; Ivan Sa­moilovych’s — to his son Gregory; Ivan Mazepa’s — to his nephew Voinarovsky. There were in these efforts some elements of states­manlike wisdom because, for their time, the establishment of mo­narchical order could bring badly needed stability and continuity of government.

But as these efforts to introduce hereditary succession were not realized, the hetmans remained the elected rulers. They were elected by the General Cossack Assembly. The decisive moment was the handing to the elected ruler of the bulava (the mace), the insignia of his authority. The election of a new Hetman was usually accompa­nied by the adoption of the new ’’Hetman Articles,” which were actually the new constitutional charters of the Ukrainian state as well as its new (or renewed) treaty with Russia. In Left-Bank Ukrai­ne the representatives of the Russian Government attended the election of the new Hetman and immediately administered his oath to the Tsar. There were no instances of the rejection of some candi­dates by these Russian representatives but, in fact, they had a great influence upon the election of one or the other candidate. This in­fluence was exerted during preliminary negotiations and outwardly the electoral meetings of the Cossack General Assembly were free from any pressure.

The Hetman’s insignia were the bulava and bunchuk. The first was a mace, a club with a ball-shaped upper end; the second — a military standard decorated with a horse tail. The first symbol of authority was of western origin. The second came from the East; the bunchuk was carried during the military campaigns before the rulers of Turkey and the Crimea.

The functions of the Hetman as a ruler of the Ukrainian state included in the first place command over the Cossack Army.

Foreign relations (with some limitations in the case of Poland and Turkey) were managed by the Hetman and on his behalf. The envoys of Russia, Poland, Turkey, and other countries would come to the Hetman’s residence where they would be recieved by him, in the presence of the higher Cossack officers and officials. The Hetman also sent his envoys to other countries and they had to submit their reports to him.

As the head of the state the Hetman had broad legislative, administrative and judicial power. The legislative function was expressed in the form of Hetman’s Universal (edict or decree). Quite often, however, it was interconnected with action of the Cossack Officers’ Council and its enlarged sessions and many of the Hetman’s edicts were based on the decisions of these governmental organs. Sometimes the problems of new legislation were also discussed and decided by the Cossack General Assembly. The Hetman himself directed these meetings if they were convoked during his rule. He also presided at the meetings of the Cossack Officers’ Council and its enlarged sessions.

In the seventeenth century the Hetman quite often acted as a judge, often as a judge of the first instance. Later his judicial func­tions were defined more exactly and he reserved for himself only the confirmation of the Supreme Court’s decisions. Prior to the establish­ment of special courts for cases concerning the boundaries of landed estates (1763) these cases were examined and resolved by the Het­man’s special representatives. Their decisions were submitted to the Hetman for confirmation.

As the head of the state the Hetman was the chief bearer of executive power. He directed the organs of central government and controlled the work of local administration. He appointed the higher military commanders and officials, although often they were first elected by the Cossack General Assembly or by the Cossack Offi­cers’ Council.

The distribution of landed estates was a very important function of the Hetman. All the ’’free villages of the Zaporozhian Army” were administered by the Ukrainian Government which, at first in rare cases and later very generously, granted them as rewards for ser­vice in the army and government. The Hetman, as the head of state, was the general administrator of the extensive reserves of the landed estates. It is true that in some comparatively rare cases the estates were granted by the Russian Tsar. The Tsar only confirmed, in most cases, the preceeding grants of estates by the Hetman. On the other hand the colonels of the Ukrainian regiments also rewarded their officers and local officials with landed estates. But, again, the in­stances of such granting were less frequent and the possession of the estate granted by a colonel was not as firm as the ownership of the estates granted by the Hetman.

In the eighteenth century the governmental functions of the Hetman became narrower and his position, in relation to the Russian Government, less firm and independent. The Hetman Ukraine gra­dually became a Russian province. In the eighteenth century the position of the Ukrainian Hetman did not exist all the time, and when it did exist (Hetmans Skoropadsky, Apostol and Rozumovsky) its functions were limited by the appointment of a special Russian representative for the control of the Hetman’s actions, participation in his work, and approval of his decisions (the times of Skoropadsky and Apostol). At the same time some matters of government were transferred directly to the central and local organs of the Russian Government, the management of foreign relations by the Ukrainian state was ended, and even the authority of the Ukrainian Government in the sphere of internal affairs was curtailed (the granting of landed estates by the Hetman was prohibited after December 18, 1709 and again in the Hetman ApostoΓs ’’Decisive Articles” in 1727). The old order was partly restored during the rule of Hetman C. Rozumovsky. This Hetman, as the brother-in-law of the Russian Empress, could rule without being controlled by the Russian representatives. But this partial restoration took place in the period when the upper groups of Ukrainian society had lost their faith in the possibility of preserving the Ukrainian state.

It is time to give the names of Ukrainian Hetmans. They were — Bohdan Khmelnytsky (1648-1657), Ivan Vyhovsky (1657-1659), George Khmelnytsky (1659-1663), Paul Teteria (1663-1666), Peter Doroshenko (1666-1676). In the last part of his rule George Khmel­nytsky was the Hetman only of Right-Bank Ukraine, so were Teteria and Doroshenko (except for a short time in 1668 when Doroshenko was elected the Hetman of both — Right-Bank and Left-Bank Ukraine. In Left-Bank Ukraine (eastern) — Ivan Somko (the Acting Hetman in 1661-1663), Ivan Brukhovetsky (1663-1668), Demian Mnohohrishnyj (1669-1672), Ivan Samoilovych (1672-1687), Ivan Mazepa (1687-1708) (after his death in exile, Philip Orlyk was elected to the position of the Hetman by the Ukrainian political refugees), Ivan Skoropadsky (1709-1722), Daniel Apostol (1727-1733), and Cyril Rozumovsky (1751-1764). This list could be extended. We did not name the persons who held this position for a very short time (for instance, Stephan Opara in Right-Bank Ukraine, 1665) or the persons who were backed by a certain group or a party whose efforts and actions were not successful (Khanenko and Sukhovii).