UKRAINIANS IN BENDER: COMPOSITION, CONDITION AND CONFLICTS

The Ukrainian refugees consisted of several distinct groups. Fewest in number, but most significant politically were the members of the starshyna. Despite defections, about 45 members of the star- shyna, together with their families and entourages, had followed Mazepa into exile and formed the Cossack leadership here.² Among them were some of the most prominent members of the Ukrainian Cossack elite, such as Andrii Voinarovskyi, the Hetman’s nephew and heir-apparent, Pylyp Orlyk, the Chancellor of the Zaporozhian Host, Dmytro Horlenko, the colonel of Pryluky, Klym Dovho- polyi, the Adjutant-General, the Hertsyk brothers, sons of the colonel of Poltava, Ivan Maksymovych, Illia Lomykovskyi, Fedir Myrovych and others.

Another category of Ukrainians in exile consisted of the rank- and-file Cossacks from the Hetmanate, members of Mazepa’s mer­cenary regiments, chancellery officials and scribes. Thesecouldnot have been numerous, since, at Perevolochna, 2,700 had surrendered to the Russians.³ The sources—mostly Swedish diaries and ac­counts—do not provide numerical data on this group, although it is apparent that the Swedes were very careful to distinguish them from the Zaporozhians. A rough estimate would put about 500 men in this category.⁴ Their numbers diminished during their stay in Bender because they were the ones most likely to leave the town to try to make their way back to their homes.

By far the largest group among the Ukrainians in Bender were the Zaporozhians. After the Sich had been destroyed, some of them established a new Sich at the juncture of the Kamenka and Dnieper Rivers. But, in 1711, Russian Iroopsagainattackedanddemolished the Sich and the Zaporozhians were forced to move even further south to construct a third Sich on the lower Dnieper near Oleshki on Tatar territory.⁵ However, most of the Zaporozhians—about 6,000 in number—had joined Mazepa in the spring of 1709 and fol­lowed him, not uncomplaining, all the way to Bender.

As might be expected, materially and in terms of morale the refugees presented a lamentable picture. Almost all of them had arrived in Bender with little more than the clothes on their backs and their weapons. They were able to survive the very difficult initial period only because a gathering swarm of Jewish, Greek and Turkish Janissary merchants advanced them credit at the cost of pawning their few surviving valuables. Many of the Zaporozhi- ans sold their weapons and hired themselves out as laborers to local landowners. In 1710, the Tsar was informed that, “There were 4,000 Zaporozhians with Orlyk and their koshoυyi.... They have no weapons because, while in Bender, they sold them because of hunger.”⁷ And in 1711, when Charles XII wanted the Cossacks to take part in a campaign against the Russians, he first had to pro­vide them with funds to obtain clothing and to buy back their weapons. The Swedes were only a little better off than the Cossacks, while the Poles were even more bedraggled.

There was one very notable exception to this general state of impoverishment. Foreseeing the worst, Mazepa had managed to collect together and bring along with him on his flight across the steppe a fortune in gold and jewels. But it was a small comfort to him in Bender. From the day he arrived, the Hetman was unable to leave his sickbed and it became evident that his days were num­bered. After parting with Charles XII and the heneralna Starshyna_f Mazepa stayed behind in the town in a mean, little room.

These questions bitterly divided the Ukrainian emigres. Some­what unclearly, Mazepa indicated that he wanted his nephew, Voinarovskyi, to inherit his title and the fortune. But the heneralna starshyna felt that Voinarovskyi, who was in his late twenties, was too young and too inexperienced. Meanwhile, the ailing Hetman, noting the heneralna starshyna's move to Jassy, accused them of defeatism and of secretly attempting to gain the Tsar’s pardon with the aid of the Hospodar of Moldavia. An indication of how strained the relations had become between Mazepa and the Cossack elite is the following verbal exchange reported by Orlyk: “On Mazepa’s orders, Voinarovskyi not only insulted me but even threatened my life. I asked Mazepa, ‘Is this the reward that I get for my loyalty? ’ He replied, ‘Had you not remained faithful to me, you would have perished like Kochubei.’ Offended, I left him and withdrew to Jassy.”⁸

The Zaporozhians also contributed to the tensions that surfaced in the emigre camp. Many of them blamed Mazepa for their plight. Even before their arrival in Bender, some of them had tried to ex­press their resentment in a manner which had almost proved fatal to the old Hetman. Just before the fleeing Ukrainians crossed into Ottoman territory, a group of Zaporozhians had tried to plunder Mazepa’s baggage train and hand the Hetman over to the Tsar in hopes of gaining amnesty. Only the energetic intervention of Stani­slaw Poniatowski, the Polish adjutant of the Swedish King, had saved the Cossack leader. After crossing the Dniester, the Zaporo- zhians continued to manifest their dissatisfaction as evidenced by a riot which they staged on July 11-12 of 1709.

But the old Hetman’s troubles soon ended with his death on 22 September 1709. Despite the disagreements that the starshyna the Zaporozhians had had with the Hetman, they realized that they had been deprived of a leader of outstanding stature. The funeral was conducted with as much pomp and circumstance as the condi­tions allowed. Preceded by drummers and trumpeters and by Cos­sacks bearing the insignia of the Hetman’s office, the carriage with Mazepa’s remains was pulled by six white horses. Alongside marched long lines of Cossacks with bared swords and lowered banners.

Behind them came a huge crowd of sorrowing Ukrainians, includ­ing many wailing women. Behind them, on horseback, rode Voina- rovskyi, Orlyk and other members of the starshyna. Even Charles XII, still recovering from a f∞t wound, came to pay his last respects to his ally whom he had prized and trusted to the end.

After the funeral, the struggle for the fortune began in earnest. It was complicated by the fact that Mazepa left no testament. The sides were quickly drawn: it was Voinarovskyi against the heneral- na starshyna. The key question in their debate was whether the Hetman’s treasure was his private property or the property of the Zaporozhian Host. If it were to be considered private property, Voinarovskyi would inherit it outright as Mazepa’s only heir; but if it were judged to be the Host’s property, it would be placed at the disposal of the new Hetman and the heneralna starshyna. Voina- rovskyi exacerbated the issue by declaring that, although he claimed the treasure, he would not accept the burden of the Hetman’s office.

The starshyna decided to bring the matter to Charles XIΓs atten­tion. ¹⁰ On 22 October they addressed a memorandum to the King in which they expressed their happiness that Ukraine had renewed its ties with Sweden which, hopefully, would lead to the removal of “the Muscovite yoke” from their land.

In the midst of their pleas and declarations, the starshyna raised the question of the fortune.¹¹ Their approach was to tie the issue to broader, political problems. They argued that if the Hetman’s treasury were empty, it would be difficult to elect a new Hetman for how could he fulfill his duties and continue the Struggleagainst the Russians if he lacked money—“the nerves of war?” Voinarovskyi also turned to the King, declaring that while he too was willing to continue the struggle against the Russians, he saw no reason why it should be financed by his uncle’s private fortune. Thus a typical emigre squabble developed in which noble phrases and intentions mingled inextricably with personal motives and interests.

Charles XII could not afford to ignore the conflict if only because of the huge sums of money involved. Although much of the wealth under his control had been lost, Mazepa still managed to bring along two large bags of gold coins, several smaller ones, two saddle­bags filled with diamonds and other precious stones, a diamond- incrusted head ornament which had once belonged to the Sultan and which was valued at 20,000 gold pieces, several jewel-incrusted swords and spears, hundreds of sable furs and many Othervaluable items. A rough estimate of this fortune placed its value at about 3/4 to 1 million Swedish reichstaler.¹² This was almost equivalent to 1/4 of the Crown’s income in Sweden in 1699 or three times the income of the Crown from its richest overseas province, Livonia, in that same year.

The nasty debate which the opposing sides engaged in before the commission was too detailed to bear repetition. It did, however, touch on several issues which had broader implications. A point that came across quite clearly was that Mazepa and most of the previous Hetmans, as well as the Starshyna_f had found it very diffi­cult to draw distinctions between their own and the Host’s property and income. As a result, the Host’s funds were regularly misap­propriated, to use a modern euphemism. However, the debate seemed to indicate that a major reason why this was the case was the lack of distinctions in Cossack Ukraine between private and public property. It is quite possible that during their debate with Voinarovskyi, the emigre Starshyna realized the extent of this prob­lem and tried to deal with it several months later when they formu­lated the so-called “Bender Constitution.”

Some of the points raised with respect to this issue of public vs. private interests were noteworthy. When the Starshyna accused Mazepa of purposely combining his private treasury with that of the Host (to the detriment of the latter), Voinarovskyi replied that this was hardly anything new since almost all the Hetmans, Khmel­nytskyi included, had done the same.¹³ Moreover, the colonels and captains followed similar practices in their own bailiwicks. An interesting and revealing statement on this issue was made by Voinarovskyi. In reply to the Starshynas argument that “public welfare” demanded that the fortune be used for the continuation of the struggle against Moscow, Mazepa’s nephew stated that, “(I support) public matters above private ones as long as they are not crumbling and there is a chance of recovery. But if there is no hope, it is only natural to try to save one’s own health, life and all that is associated with it.”¹⁴ In all likelihood, this was the credo not only of Mazepa’s nephew, but also of the Cossack Starshyna which did not support the Hetman’s attempts to defend Ukrainian “rights and privileges” against the Tsar’s encroachments.

The debate also underlined how deep had been the tensions between Mazepa and the starshyna. While criticizing the Hetman’s financial practices, the Cossack officers bitterly recalled his auto­cratic ways, going so far as to say that, “It was the Tsar and the Hetman who enslaved us.”¹⁵ Replying that he was “surprised to hear the liberator of his country referred to as its oppressor,”¹⁶ Voinarovskyi pointed out that his uncle had not so much disliked the Starshyna as he had looked down on it, often berating its mem­bers for “their untutored speech and boorish manners.” When asked why they did not complain to the Tsar about the Hetman’s transgressions, the Starshyna stated that they did not wish to upset the public order, adding ruefully that, “The Tsar would sooner have disbelieved an angel than Mazepa.”¹⁷

In the end, it was Voinarovskyi who won the case. Apparently he was more clever and unscrupulous than his opponents. He bribed witnesses by promising them a share—albeit a very small one—of the fortune, and he made it clear that he would be willing to make further loans, on very favorable terms, to the Swedish King.¹⁸ (In the fall of 1709, Voinarovskyi lent Charles XII about 40,000 talers; in March 1710 he advanced about 100,000 talers; and in January 1711 about 60,000 reichstaler.) Eventually the amounts which the Swedish King borrowed from both Mazepa and Voinarovskyi to­taled over 300,000 reichstaler. Since such transactions could best be carried out if the fortune were in private hands rather than under public, i.e., the Starshynas control, the financially hard-pressed Charles XII made a decision that suited him best.