THE UKRAINIAN COSSACKS IN THE SIXTEENTH AND FIRST HALF OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

The Ukrainian regions of the Polish state, especially those along the Dnieper River, showed a very real difference from the other provinces of Poland. They differed from Polish regions not only in terms of their geography and ethnography but also in the class structure of their population.

The formation of this class extended through many decades, beginning in the ’’Lithuanian” period. It started in the thinly popula­ted or uninhabited open spaces of the steppes in the Central and Southern Ukraine. At first there were groups which went to hunt and fish in these remote areas. As they met the similar gangs of Tatars and Nogays who regarded the ’’wild steppe” to be their own territory, the Ukrainian hunters and fishermen (later they assumed the Turkish name, the kozaks ■—■ freemen) had to organize them­selves into armed units. In this way originated their regular organi­zations in the area of the Zaporozh’ka Sich — the Zaporozhian Sich, a military outpost in the lower Dnieper Valley, as well as in several towns and settlements in Central Ukraine.

When one talks about the Ukrainian Cossacks in the second half of the sixteenth and first half of the seventeenth century, one always has to distinguish the Cossacks of Zaporozhian Sich from the Cossacks in the old-established towns and settlements. At the same time one has to remember that in this period the dividing line bet­ween these two categories of the Cossack class was not as clear as it was later in Hetman Ukraine. A Cossack who lived in the Sich could move to the towns and villages further north, and vice versa and this would not lead to a radical change in his social status.

The Zaporozhian Host was a highly peculiar organization of the Ukrainian Cossacks in the lower Dnieper Valley.

The historians of Ukrainian constitutional law (or social and political institutions) unfortunately have failed to define the politico- legal position of the Zaporozhian Host and its relations with the Polish state. Several years ago Dr. Bohdan Halaichuk expounded an interesting theory that the Zaporozhian Host was a polity of a pe­culiar kind. This statement should become a subject for special studies. In our opinion one can only talk about the beginning of a process which could have led the Zaporozhian Cossack organiza­tion toward full independence or nominal dependence on Poland. But the process at that time had not been concluded and the Sich Cossacks remained the subjects of the Polish kings and were con­trolled, though often only nominally, by the Polish authorities.

- The Zaporozhians (Sich Cossacks) who settled beyond the Dnie­per Falls established a singular military and popular organization. Their assembly (Sichova Rada — the Sich Council) became the organ of direct popular rule. Their chief, koshovyi otaman, was elected for a limited term by the assembly. It could at any time remove him from his position and elect his successor. The Zaporozhian Cossacks were divided into kurins which were not only the military units (and barracks) but, at the same time, the labour groups of hunters, fisher­men and beekeepers.

We shall later outline the Zaporozhian Sich organization when we discuss its development in the second half of the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Here we can note that the organizational struc­ture of the Zaporozhian Host was a source of the organizational structure of the Cossack communities in the settled parts of the Central and Eastern Ukraine and, later (1648 and after), in the stat⅛ of the Ukrainian hetmans.

Let us describe the organization of the non-Zaporozhian Cossack communities in the sixteenth and first half of the seventeenth cen­tury. At that time the Ukrainian Cossacks constituted a special group of the population. The Polish state very reluctantly recognized the existence of this social class and was always ready to disestablish it and, if it were possible, to limit the number of its members. For this purpose the Polish Government established the Cossack Registry and tried to reduce their number (6,000 Cossacks in 1624, 8,000 in 1630, 7,000 in 1635, 3,000 in 1637, 6,000 in 1638).

The Cossacks were an intermediate hereditary class or social estate between the nobility (shliakhta) and the peasantry. Like a nobleman, a Cossack, — at least in principle, was obliged to serve the country and, as a reward for this service, he had the right to possess a plot of land. In regard to his social status a Cossack was a member of a hereditary group. He differed from a serf as a person free from personal bondage (serfdom) and from compulsory work on a manorial estate (corvee labour). His status was different from that of a nobleman since he had no serfs.

Being isolated from Poland and less dependent on the Polish government, it seemed that here in the open spaces of the Ukrainian steppes were reborn the vanished hereditary social groups of the old ’’Lithuania,” ■—■ the putnye and pantsernye boiary (the heralds and armor-clad boyars), slugi (retainers), and others. In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania they were the lower layer of the upper class who served their country and possessed the relatively small plots which they cultivated themselves.

Now it was a different time. The shliakhta, a consolidated upper class which had an exclusive right to own the serfs and to exploit their work, had closed its ranks. As a result a Cossack who, like a nobleman, served his country, was in a socially disadvantaged posi­tion. Yet the process of social differentiation and social change had continued in these Ukrainian regions of the Polish state, putting strain on the established social structure. Many members of the upper layer of the Cossack class (titled ’’noble”, ’’old”, ’’meritorious” Cossacks) were dissatisfied with their legal position and were ready to struggle for equal rights with the nobility. In some cases these upper groups of the Cossacks had on their lands peasants who wor­ked for them but their control over these peasants was not as full as that exercised by the noble owners of the manorial estates. In the middle of the seventeenth century their social and economic situ­ation was evidently very close to the class of the shliakhta. That is why we should not be surprised by the extent of their political influence later on in the period of the Khmelnytsky Uprising as well as in Hetman Ukraine.

In order to prove his affiliation with the Cossack hereditary class a person had to be included in the Cossack Registry, controlled and confirmed by the Polish Government. As has already been mentioned, this Registry was very restricted. In fact the Registry could not include all the persons who desired to join the Cossacks group as there were quite a few shliakhta, burghers, and even foreig­ners, who for some reasons tried to join the Cossacks. During the several uprisings against Poland, the members of other social groups joined the Cossack forces. Each time after the Cossack defeat and the period of ’’pacification” the Cossack Registry was purged and the number of registered Cossacks even more restricted.

The Cossacks were led and governed by an elected leader. At first he was called Starshyi (the Elder) and later the Hetman, in accordance with the title of top military commanders in Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Cossack Hetman was elected by the General Cossack Assembly for an indeterminate period. If it was not satisfied with his leadership the assembly could dismiss him at any time and elect his successor.

The Hetman was the military commander of Cossack forces as well as the leader and chief representative of the Cossack social estate. In time of military campaigns he was the supreme commander of the Cossack Army. In the time of peace he ruled the Cossack class as its head and chief judge. He also represented the Cossack Army and the entire Cossack class before the Polish Government and its provincial organs.

The Hetman was assisted by a group of Cossack officers who were the commanders of Cossack military-territorial units or had special military and administrative functions. They also served as members of the Hetman’s permanent advisory council of a sort. Among them was the oboznyi (who was the commander of the Cossack artillery), pysar (secretary), osavul (aide-de-camp), and judge.

The General Cossack Rada (Council or Assembly) was a general meeting of all Cossack units for the election of their officers and the discussion and solution of the most important problems concer­ning the Cossack Army. It was an organ of Cossack self-government which, unlike the representative institutions of social estates in other European countries, was organized on the principle of the direct participation of all Cossacks. The General Cossack Assembly was the supreme organ of Cossack administration. The Hetman, who was elected and responsible to the Cossack Assembly and who could be at any time dismissed by it, was in a subordinate position toward this body.

All the Cossacks had a right and duty to participate in the meetings of the Cossack Assembly, i. e. all the registered Cossacks in the time of peace and all the persons enlisted into the Cossack units during the rebellions against Poland. The meetings of the Cossack Assembly were not regular; they were convened when there was a need to discuss and resolve a problem within the Assembly’s competence. Their form was a meeting somewhere in the field or in some open space. The participants formed a circle around which were grouped the Cossack regiments and companies. The procedure of these meetings depended on their form as an assembly of several thousand people. There were speeches of some leaders and their opponents; there was some shouting and the expression of agreement or disagreement. There was no regular voting. The majority made a decision and forced the minority to accept it by drowning the voices of protest. But there were cases when the minority which resolutely defended its position was able to prevail upon the Assembly to reconsider its decision and to change it.

The authority and functions of the General Cossack Assembly competed with the authority and functions of the Hetman. It could be said that the Assembly discussed and decided the most important administrative, military, and judicial problems. But we can only talk about some trends and tendencies toward such division of the functions and rights. A strong Hetman was very often able to decide some important problems without the Cossack Assembly and the Assembly was thus left to discuss problems of little importance.

The Cossack Army was divided into smaller units: polky (regi­ments) and sotni (’’hundreds” or companies). First and foremost these were the military units. But their commanding officers governed the members of the Cossack class even at the time of peace when most of them lived in their villages or on their farms and tilled their lands.

The regiments were the largest units of the Cossack Army. Each regiment included the Cossacks who resided in the territory which was allocated to it, and was led and commanded by its polkoυnyk (colonel) who, usually was elected by the Regimental Cossack Assembly. A Cossack colonel had several assistants, the Cossack officers who helped and advised him. After the Cossack defeat in 1638, however, the Polish state reserved the right to appoint the Cossack colonels, whom it selected from the shliakhta who lived in the territory assigned to a corresponding Cossack regiment. This system, was abolished by the victorious Uprising of 1648. A colonel was the commander of his regiment as a military unit. At the same time he was the leader, governor, and judge of the Cossacks who belonged to his regiment and lived in his regiment’s territory. We have to stress that he was the leader of the Cossacks only; the mem­bers of other classes were governed by the provincial and country organs of Polish state.

The officers assisting a Cossack colonel were also elected by the Regimental Cossack Assembly. The meetings of the Regimental Rada were the smaller copy of the General Cossack Assembly. They were attended by the Cossacks who served in the regiment and lived in the region. The functions of the Regimental Assembly included the elections of the colonel and regimental officers, and the discussion and decision of the more important problems concerning the regi­ment and the Cossacks who belonged to it.

Each regiment in its turn was divided into smaller units: the sotnias (’’hundreds” or companies). Like the regiments these units were military detachments as well as administrative and judicial bodies governing the Cossack class in their regions. Each sotnia was led and governed by its commander — sotnyk (captain), assisted by the sotnia’s officers. The sotnyks and the sotnia’s officers were elec­ted by the Rada of each sotnia, i. e. the Cossack meeting of the sotnia’s area. These assemblies also discussed and decided some problems of administration and justice raised by the sotnyk or by the Cossacks.

In a few words that was the organization of the Cossack Army and the self-government of the Cossack class. As could be expected the presence of such a separate social group which existed besides the nobility (shliakhta) and had similar social duties and obliga­tions but was not equal in its rights to the shliakhta, led to conflicts between these two social classes. These different and conflicting positions of the two social groups gave a special form to their struggle, which at the same time was a conflict between two na­tionalities. Not always did the Ukrainian Cossacks understand this situation. But, when in 1648 an uprising led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky was successful, the Cossack program ”to drive the Poles away beyond the Vistula” showed this second feature of their movement, the effort to liberate their country and to restore its statehood.