SECTION C THE NOBLE ARMY FELLOWS

The old Ukrainian shliakhta did not become the upper heredi­tary class of the Ukrainian state. At first it seemed that the Cossacks, as a group which created that state in Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s time, were destined to become such a new upper social group.

In the countries with the social system of hereditary classes the military commanders and governors were usually recruited from the upper class. Such an upper hereditary class was sustained by the landed holdings which its members received on the basis of feudal (but not as strict as before) conditional possession of land. This land- tenure was connected with military service at home and participa­tion in military campaigns. The peasants who lived on these estates belonged to the members of the upper hereditary class as their serfs. The Ukrainian Cossacks could not become such an upper group. We speculate that it could have happened if the registered Cossacks, after seizing power in 1648, had replaced the Polonized groups of the shliakhta and had become the upper hereditary class assuming the shliakhta’s privileges as well as its duties. But it did not happen and the Cossacks in the post-Khmelnytsky era were too numerous and too weak from the economic point of view. A peasant who fought as a Cossack in Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s time in most case had only a single wish, to return to his village homestead.

But what had not been achieved by most of the Cossacks was accomplished by some of them. These men, in time, became members of the new upper class. Evidently they were the most prosperous among the Cossacks; otherwise they could not provide their farms with labour during the long military campaigns or during the exe­cution of some administrative or judicial functions. It is also possible that they were the most capable of carrying out these military and administrative functions, by their cultural level, energy, special interest in work, and, finally, by their readiness to shed their blood for their country. In expressing this opinion, we differ from the po­pulist historiography which regarded the historical development of Hetman Ukraine as a vicious process in which the upper social groups worked against their own people. We cannot forget that in the seventeenth century these upper groups bore the burden of the establishment and support of the new Ukrainian state.

The most prominent Cossacks were rewarded by the hetmans for their work for the "Zaporozhian Army” by landed estates on the temporary basis ”as long as the army needs them” and as long as they continued to serve it. Later we find in the hetmans’ letters patent the notes that the peasants who resided on these estates had to carry out ’’habitual services” to the landowner. At first these ser­vices were of short duration, but later they became permanent; in the middle of the eighteenth century the peasants lost their right to leave the estate. The circle was closed and basic social relations in Hetman Ukraine became again the relations between the landlord and his serf; as they were in other European countries of that time.

This process of social differentiation developed slowly over many decades. But this development went with inexorable consistency. Its characteristic features were not the examples of violence and suppression which the historians found in the archives of Ukrainian courts and administrative offices, but inexorable development and extension. The acts of violence could be avoided but this would not have changed the consistent path of the historical process. The position of the upper class of the Ukrainian state, which was obliged to serve this state, and which was rewarded for this service according to the conditions of that time, was acquired not by all the Cossacks but only by the members of their upper layer. Evidently the cadres of the new upper social class consisted mainly of the Ukrainian registred Cossacks of the pre-revolutionary period. They were joined by some most able, respected, and wealthy groups among the pea­sants and townspeople who enlisted into the Cossack Army after 1648. They were also joined by those members of the old Ukrainian shliakhta who participated in the struggle against Poland. Thus the formation of the new upper social class extended for several decades.

In a monograph devoted to the Noble Army Fellowship in Het­man Ukraine of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century (1948) we noted data showing the existence of the two categories in the Cossack Army — the ordinary Cossacks and the znatni tovaryshi (eminent or noble army fellows). Sometimes these ’’fellows” were called ’’distinguished” (by their service to the new state), or ’’old” (by their descent from the registered Cossacks of the pre-revolutionary period), or ’’noble” (who could combine both of these characteristics). In the 1670’s the last became prevalent and just in this period it started to signify the new upper social group of Hetman Ukraine. But the formation and legalization of the new upper hereditary class went further and, in its last stage, it reflected external pressure, re­lated to the political situation in the eighteenth century.

From the middle of the 1670’s we find the hetmans’ letters declaring the assignment of the one or other noble army fellow to serve ’’under our bunchuk”. The bunchuk was the Hetman’s own military standard, and acceptance ’’under the bunchuk” meant that a person was exempted from the jurisdiction and authority of the state’s territorial and military subdivisions — regiments and ’’hundreds” (or companies) — and their commanders. From that time this person was placed under the direct jurisdiction and com­mand of the Hetman himself. During military campaigns he belonged to the Hetman’s entourage. Only the Hetman could try him for the violation of laws. In the late seventeenth century this upper cate­gory of noble army fellows received a special name — the bunchuk fellows (Fellows of the Standard). To the ranks of the standard fellows were admitted the most prominent Cossacks, notable for their outstanding service or tħeir influential social position. Those noble army fellows who could not attain such an outstanding position from this time were called only the ’’regimental noble fellows” (for instance, ’’the noble army fellow of the Starodub Regiment”, etc.). In the late 1680’s their position was legalized in the Regiment of Starodub, the old Shliakhta centre of northern Ukraine. Here they were admitted ’’under the regimental znachok (banner)”. Admittance under the regimental banner meant the legal separation from the Cossack mass, and exemption from the command and jurisdiction of the hundred’s commanders and officers. In a short time such persons received the name of the Znachkovi tovaryshi (Fellows of the Banner, or Banner Fellows). Gradually other regiments adopted this practice and this social category, and in the early eighteenth century, we find it in the whole territory of Hetman Ukraine. Fi­nally, in the 1720’s the organization of the upper class of the Het­man Ukraine consisted of the three categories of noble army fellows — the Fellows of the Standard, Fellows of the Banner, and viis’kovi tovaryshi (Army or Military Fellows).

Empress Anna Ivanovna’s edict of August 8, 1734 played an important role in the organizational development of the Ukrainian upper class. This edict limited the number of the znachok (banner) fellows. In the regiments of Kiev, Myrhorod, Pryluky and Hadiach their number was not to exceed thirty, and in other regiments — fifty. The edict influenced the whole development of the Ukrainian upper class because it artificially put this class (in its lower layer, the banner fellows) in the position of an official rank with a limi­ted membership. But the Ukrainian nobility of the eighteenth cen­tury tried to evade the established limits. We find in the middle of the eighteenth century the new categories of ’the assigned banner fellows” (i. e. the candidates to the full banner fellowship) and ’’the men under the jurisdiction of the regimental chancellery” (i. e. a sort of ’associate fellows” who like the banner fellows were exemp­ted from the command and jurisdiction of the hundred comman­ders). They were those members of the new upper social class who were not able to enter its formal narrow limits established by the edict of 1734.

The three categories of the noble army fellows had to serve the Zaporozhian Army, i. e. the Ukrainian state. On condition of this service each of them possessed one or several landed estates; most of them were granted to him ”as long as the Zaporozhian Army is pleased with his service” (do Iasky voiskovoi). He could serve in the army or government himself or otherwise had to equip and send several Cossacks during a military campaign. His duties and assign­ments could also be executed by his brother, son, son-in-law, etc. As we see, that was a principle of service to the state as a payment for the possession of landed estates.

The peasants who resided on an estate of a noble army fellow (or, for that matter, an officer of the Zaporozhian Army) were ob­liged to work for the landlord; in the eighteenth century this work became more and more akin to the conditions of bondage or serfdom.

There were special rules governing the admission to the ranks of the new Ukrainian upper class. The znachok (banner) fellows were selected by the colonels of Regiments; from the middle of the eigh­teenth century the colonels had only the right to recommend the candidates and the admission papers were then issued by the Gene­ral Chancellery of the state. The bunchuk (standard) fellows were admitted by a special decree of the Hetman (Universal). In the eigh­teenth century some standard fellows were also admitted to this group by the orders of the General Chancellery. So were the ’’army fellows.”

The admission was recorded in special rosters (komputy). Later these rosters of the noble army fellows served as a proof of their social position in the Ukrainian state which justified their ad­mission to the Russian dvorιanstvo (nobility). *

The duties of the noble army fellows were not limited to mili­tary service. They also performed various duties and executed assignments in time of peace. In 1736 ’ The Administration of the Hetman Office’ decreed that thirty standard fellows should always remain in Hlukhiv and be at the disposal of the General Chancellery and Supreme Court for the execution of various assignments and commissions. In the same way a certain number of the banner fellows had to attend to the regimental officers and be available for various duties and assignments. Such banner fellows sometimes were called the ’’ordinance fellows” (ordynansovi tovaryshi).

An order book of 1763 informs us about the military service of the noble army fellows. It lists 549 banner fellows and shows that 323 of them participated in military campaigns. Moreover 61 of them participated in two wartime campaigns, 41 in three, 54 in four, 33 in six, and 23 in seven and more. In the time of peace the noble army fellows regularly carried out various commissions and investi­gations, collected taxes, participated in the censuses, were sent (in the seventeenth century) to other countries as members of political and diplomatic missions; some of them participated in the codifica­tion of Ukrainian laws, some built bridges, and the others controlled the locust. In general we can say that the documentary materials pertaining to their service to the state show us that the commissions and assignments were fairly regular and that they separated for a long time and several times during the year the noble army fellows from their homes and their estates.

In theory a refusal to perform duty would result in confiscation of the estates. But conditional land tenure already came so close to the right of property that the confiscation of an estate was very rare. Thus a refusal to participate in a military campaign or to carry out an assignment was usually punished by fines or, in some cases, by the transfer from the komput (roster) of the noble army fellows to the komput and status of the ordinary Cossacks.

The division of a society into hereditary classes presupposes the legal inequality of different social groups. For the upper social class this inequality meant some privileges in comparison to the socio-political rights of the other classes. The noble army fellows as the upper social group of Hetman Ukraine had such a privileged position. The first of these privileges of the noble army fellows (as well as of those members of the upper class who served as the officers of the Ukrainian Army and the officials of the Government) was their participation in government, and especially in the enlar­ged sessions of the Cossack Officers’ Council. Attending the sessions of the parliament-type organization jointly with the representatives of the townspeople, but in much larger number and with greater influence, the upper social group exercised its rights to participate in the preparation of laws and in the discussion and solution of most important problems of government. By attending the meetings of the regimental officers’ councils this group secured its right to parti­cipate in local government.

Judicial privileges also separated the noble army fellows from the other social classes. The cases concerning the standard fellows were tried by the Hetman himself, and later in the eighteenth cen­tury by the central General Court. This Court also tried the cases and lawsuits of the army fellows. The banner fellows were exempted from the jurisdiction of lower courts. After the "restoration” of the pre-revolutionary shliakhta (noble) courts in 1763, the noble army fellows were tried by them. It is true that the jurisdiction of these courts also extended over the ordinary Cossacks but they were limited in their rights because only noble army fellows could take part in the election of the members of shliakhta courts. In accordance with their upper social position the noble army fellows and those members of this group who held the posts of the Cossack officers had a special privilege to receive higher monetary compensation (damages) in court cases as it was granted by the Lithuanian Statute to members of the shliakhta class. The eighteenth century Ukrainian draft of the ’’Laws by Which the Little Russian People Are Judged” also established higher damages for the transgressions against the noble army fellows than for the transgressions against the members of other social groups.

Only the members of the Ukrainian upper class had the firm right to own or possess landed estates. In our study on the noble army fellows we presented numerous instances of the confiscation of landed estates possessed by the members of other social groups. The Ukrainian upper class enjoyed also some tax exemptions and other financial privileges.

The hereditary classes were semi-closed social groups. As a rule the class position of parents determined the social standing of their children. Hetman Ukraine was no exception from this but here the hereditary character of the upper class was perhaps less manifested than it was in other European countries. Quite often the most promi­nent and wealthy members of the townspeople and Cossacks joined the lower layer of the upper class — the banner fellows. But the later development of social relations went toward gradual closing of these channels of social advancement. Thus in 1768 an order was issued which declared that only the children of the noble army fellows and Cossack officers could join the ranks of the banner fellows. These features of social organization prove the existence in Hetman Ukraine of a system of legal and socio-political inequa­lity and that the upper class — the noble army fellows — had seve­ral political privileges and economic advantages. Previous historians, when writing on the upper social group in Hetman Ukraine, usually designated them as the ’’Cossack starshyna” (group of the Cossack officers). But the Cossack officers were commanders of military units and at the same time governmental officials of the Ukrainian state. They came from the ranks of the noble army fellows and they returned to this group after the termination of their service. Only the noble army fellows were the permanent social group and it was they who composed the upper hereditary class of Hetman Ukraine.

In the final phase of Ukrainian autonomy the Russian Go­vernment tried to unify the Ukrainian social system with the social structure of Russia. In 1785 the Ukrainian upper group was granted the rights of the Russian dvorianstvo (nobility) and was included in this Russian upper class. The upper layer of the Ukrainian upper class (the standard and army fellows, and the Cossack commanders and officials down to the sotnia commanders) was accepted directly into the Russian dvorianstvo. The lower layer (the banner fellows and the officers of Cossack sotnias) had to prove their right to join the upper class of Russia. Some of the banner fellows in the northern regions of the Ukrainian state opened their old cases with the do­cumentary data showing that their ancestors belonged to the shliakh- ta class. Others had to present the testimonies of twelve witnesses corroborating the ’’noble way of life” of their ancestors and the pro­per qualifications of the candidates themselves. Strict enforcement of these prevented the admission to the Russian dvorianstvo of many members of the Ukrainian upper class; in fact the larger part of the banner fellows were not able to enter into the upper class of the Russian Empire.