The history of the Ukrainian people is extremely rich in prolonged stretches of sacrificial struggle for freedom (“Cossack’s liberties,” to use a term of the past epochs), for the right to be the master in one’s own land. The goal was to establish a sovereign state in primordial Ukrainian ethnic lands, with the protection of the independence of the Ukrainian state and political independence of the nation.
However, even in highlands one can find the highest Everest. Such a figurative designation, no doubt, will be quite appropriate to characterize the tremendous Ukrainian national Cossack-peasant uprising which erupted in our lands in 1648 and changed the entire political and social landscape of the then Eastern Europe beyond the point of recognition. It was the real “moment of truth” in our history, for it determined its further development not for centuries ahead. Even now (regardless of the fact whether we realize it or not) the Ukrainian people to some extent stays in that “system of reference” which was established by Bohdan-Zynovii Khmelnytsky, a unique individual who headed the Revolution of the European scale and sweep.
It is absolutely natural that both the huge range of problems of the Khmelnytsky period in all its aspects and the impressive figure of the most famous Ukraine’s hetman in all periods of Ukraine’s history were always in the spotlight of the attention of Ukrainian and foreign historians, politicians, and writers. Even while speaking only about home scholars, the wide scope of thoughts, constellations of names, and passionate character of discussions are still impressive.
The mysterious author of Istoria Rusiv (History of Ruses), Mykhailo Maksymovych, Mykola Kostomarov, Mykhailo Hrushevsky, Matvii Yavorsky, Ivan Krypiakevych, Mykhailo Braichevsky, Olena Apanovych, and Volodymyr Holobutsky — this is a very short list that includes only first-rate historians who made a considerable contribution to studying the life and activity of Khmelnytsky and his epoch in the past two centuries. However, the process of historical discovery by nature is perpetual, inexhaustible and self-renewable: the axioms seemingly recognized by everyone are called into question (or even dramatically revised), while new, earlier unknown facts expand our conceptual understanding of the epoch’s key problems, and the need for a systematic generalization of these facts becomes even more urgent.
All of this should be reflected in systematic and fundamental works of researchers – without this one can’t speak about comprehending such a central, “nation-forming” epoch in the history of Ukraine as the Bohdan Khmelnytsky revolution.
Two books were recently published by reputable Kyiv’s publishing houses: Ukrainska natsionalna revoliutsia 17 stolittia (1648–1676) (Ukrainian National Revolution of the 17th century [1648–1676], Kyiv Mohyla Academy Publishers, 2009) and Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Sotsialno-politychny portret (Bohdan Khmelnytsky. A Sociopolitical Portrait, Tempora Publishers, 2009). These two publications became an important event in the Ukrainian historical science, especially in the field of late medieval and early modern epochs.
The books are written by a pair of brilliant researchers who are well-known in our country and abroad: Academician Valerii Smolii, director of the NANU Institute of the History of Ukraine, and Professor Valerii Stepankov. Regular readers of The Day will remember very well Stepankov’s great articles, lectures and publications. One of his articles on the issues of the national revolution in the 17th century was published in the book Viiny i myr (Wars and Peace) in the The Day’s Library Series.
There is every reason to suppose that we haven’t seen a research of such scale, level of generalization, and quality in Ukraine for a long time (and it deals, let’s stress once again, with the historical period which defined, in many aspects, the future development of the nation for decades and centuries ahead; it is about the person who was the soul, the “engine,” and the strategist of this time — Bohdan Khmelnytsky).
The former of the two books is dedicated to the topical problems of the 1648-76 Ukrainian national revolution. The authors thoroughly and persuasively argue that it is fully legitimate to characterize the enormous historical phenomenon headed by Bohdan Khmelnytsky precisely as a “national revolution” and that the chronological framework of this revolution, 1648-76, is correct. For the first time in several recent decades a systematic and complex analysis of this revolution as a phenomenon (and not as a chaotic set of separate facts and a number of politically prejudiced and biased assessments) is provided. This analysis includes a big number of components (this is one of the main merits of the book by Valerii Smolii and Valerii Stepankov). One of them is a contrastive comparison of the Ukrainian revolution with the context of the European revolutionary movement of the early modern time (it deals with the Dutch, English, Great French Revolution, and with the Peasant War in Germany in 1525–26). Another one is the analysis of the growing opposition sentiments regarding the Polish political regime in the Ukrainian society. Some of the other components include the following: the beginning of the Ukrainian revolution (1596-48); an account of the national liberation struggle of Ukrainians in 1649-52; an analysis of the Peasant War in 1648 through the first half of 1652 (the authors quite reasonably distinguish this social movement of great power from the general flow of the revolution) and laying the foundations of the new social policy; the demolition of the Polish political system and establishing the Ukrainian one; the birth of the Ukrainian national idea; the influence of the geopolitical factor on the effectiveness of the Ukrainian revolution and the struggle of Ukrainian diplomacy for preserving the revolution’s achievements (an essentially new and very interesting chapter!), and, finally, the concluding stage of the Ukrainian national revolution and its defeat (1658-76).
As a result, the authors managed to create an integral, methodologically proven conception of a colossal social explosion in 1648-76, which “drastically changed the political and social development in Ukrainian lands and the state of economic relations, led to the establishment of a national state in the form of Cossack Ukraine, and played an exceptionally important role in the development of national consciousness, enriching the arsenal of means and methods of national liberation movements of Ukrainians.”
This book does not reiterate the research Ukrainska natsionalna revoliutsia 17 stolittia (Ukrainian National Revolution of the 17th Century) which was published in 1999 in the series Ukraina kriz viky (Ukraine through the Ages). In the process of its preparation, Smolii and Stepankov tried to depart from the traditional structuring of exposition on the events basis, but focused on the most important problematic components of the single revolutionary flow which accumulate an extremely large and diverse complex of factors (some of them are stated above).
Obviously, the second book by our authors — the social and political portrait of Bohdan Khmelnytsky — will draw even more attention. This is the third, but very much expanded and improved edition of the political biography of the “brilliant rebel” (the first one was published in 1995 and became a bibliographic rarity). The success of this work among readers can be easily predicted. For the words of the prominent writer and historian of the 18th century Samiilo Velychko have not lost their topicality: “As Moses God sent them (Ukrainians – Author) a person named Bohdan Khmelnytsky and gave him reason and mind to liberate the free Little Russian people from such a heavy yoke and obtain so much anticipated freedom.” Thanks to his personal exceptional qualities, and, most importantly, his ability to sense the “mysterious march of history” and correctly guess the direction of its development, Khmelnytsky has always been one of the greatest Ukrainians. As Smolii and Stepankov write, the famous hetman, “reflecting the general national interests, made a real breakthrough in the formation of home policy, united different social forces in one rebel camp, organized them and guided to the struggle for independent Ukraine, enriched their political culture by working out the fundamental principles for the national idea, and was a source of establishing and developing the Ukrainian state.”
The book Bohdan Khmelnytsky. A Sociopolitical Portrait (incidentally, the book design by the Tempora Publishers is just amazing) is a collection of all known, as of today, factual information about the founder of the Ukrainian Cossack’s state – from the first conscious steps in life to the tragic and abrupt death at a moment when the newly established state found itself under an ominous threat in August 1657. This is a great example of biographical genre in the contemporary Ukrainian research literature; despite the lightness and ease of the language, thanks to which the sizeable 680-page volume reads smoothly, the research apparatus of the edition is impressive, since the chapter “Sources and Literature” (published and unpublished, Ukrainian and foreign) alone includes several hundred titles of processed works and about 50 pages of text.
The Day’s correspondent, trying to at least partly satisfy the readers’ interest in the two works by the famous Ukrainian historians, asked them to answer a few short questions.
Your books set forth almost everything known to the historical science about the life of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and about the great Revolution he headed. However, obviously, there always remain insufficiently studied or debatable problems that historians break lances over. Could you name some of these problems?
Valerii SMOLII: “The theoretical problems of history of wars and revolutions generally remain the least developed today (and, certainly, regarding the specific Ukrainian history of the Khmelnytsky’s epoch). The fact is that we’ll hardly substantially enrich the facts canvas of this period. Yes, some specification, some ‘expanding of plots’ are possible, as well as involving sources of Turkish origin and Swedish documents. And yet, today we need to deal with theoretical problems above all.
“I’ll briefly enumerate them. What is common and special for the analogous revolutionary phenomena in Europe and Ukraine? One should follow the typology of these events, approach the conclusions which would demonstrate that it was (or wasn’t) a single page in Europe’s history – a transition from medieval times to the early modern time. Another question is the diplomatic history of those events and those wars. This history (with all currently existing progress) is still not elaborated to the very end. The problem of social consciousness requires a much deeper investigation of the epoch of Khmelnytsky (let’s call it this way), covering different layers of the society of that time. This is a very important and interesting topic: the worldview of Cossacks, peasants, lower middle class citizens, the clergy, and noblemen of that time.
“At the moment I wouldn’t like to touch solely political questions in the triangle ‘Poland-Ukraine-Russia’ or the evaluation of the Pereiaslav Treaty. For there is too much prejudice. Though these are, of course, debatable problems, too, and they need studying. However, I’ll point out again: the elaboration of problems of theoretical-methodological, not event-oriented, character lies ahead, except for, perhaps, diplomatic history, for it involves a different scale and level of studying.”
Valerii STEPANKOV: “One can enumerate many debatable issues of the kind. I’ll briefly mention only some of them.
“First, the life of the future Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky before 1648 (precisely until this historical milestone). I mean not only the little studied facts of his biography (for example, conditions of his liberation from the Turkish captivity), but also worldview moments: how his views were formed, what events influenced them, how they developed, etc.
“Second, the appearance and development of the ideology of the Ukrainian national revolution in the 17th century, studying this ideology in all its complex aspects (considering national, religious, social, cultural, and foreign policy aspects, to put it briefly).
“Third, the necessity of a correct, farsighted, and fair development of social relations. What is notable, after the Peace Treaty of Zboriv was signed in August 1649, Ukrainian serfs, which had actively supported Khmelnytsky during the previous months of the revolution, saw that the hetman compromised with the opponent and, in fact, with the old order, and made corresponding conclusions regarding Khmelnytsky which, to say the least, had sad consequences for our history.
“Fourth, the drama of the foreign policy choice (what orientation to choose – Warsaw, Moscow, Sweden, or the Turkish sultan?). My personal opinion is that Khmelnytsky made an obvious mistake refusing from the suggested protectorate of the Ottoman Porte in 1655. Accepting this protection could defend Ukraine from many real foreign policy threats which really appeared soon. Why it happened so is another question, and answering it requires involving additional sources and studying Eastern (or South-Eastern) direction in the history of our state.
“And fifth, the military efforts of Bohdan Khmelnytsky. As it is known, he managed to establish a battleworthy army in an extremely short term. How did he achieve this? What was the social contingent of the troops? As we see, here we inevitably face the entire complex of social problems worth paying special attention to, in my opinion.”
What conclusions (or warnings) can we make from our big, really full of tragedies history of the 17th century? What can it teach our contemporary Ukrainians?
Valerii STEPANKOV: “The first lesson for us lies in the fact that the guarantee of the development of the Ukrainian nation in both the 17th century and now is the unity of the elite, above all, the political and intellectual elite. When this unity was missing, we had (and will have) ‘struggle for the mace (power),’ when the priority is not national but narrow (group, clan) interests which in an extremely destructive way influence the fate of the state. Actually, that’s how Ukraine was thrown into the civil war with its further division into Left-Bank Hetmanate and Right-Bank Ukraine.”
“The second lesson. Only the general national idea (and not regional ideas or interests of Zaporizhia, or Right-Bank and Left-Bank Hetmanate) can be the source and guarantee of the unity of this elite. The prevalence of narrow regional interests over the general national ones often demonstrates the profound weakness of the state, which is often fatal. If the ‘regional elites’ don’t aspire to unite the country and the state, we’ll have no future.
“The third lesson. Any reforms (including only planned ones) should rely, first of all, on satisfying the social needs of the population. Ukrainians in their mentality have such a very characteristic feature as pragmatism: they want to make sure in practice that the future changes will be beneficial for them and check it ‘by touch.’ Otherwise there will be no faith in the changes – and this should be taken into account by all means. And it was the fact that the newly-created Cossack Ukrainian state of the 17th century was accepted by people as ‘their own,’ which inspired people for selfless struggle to protect this state. I’ll remind you that five million of Ukrainians perished in battles or died of wounds and devastations in the struggle for independence!
“And the fourth lesson. In no way can we compromise at the cost of the national idea. Because this way we can surrender (in succession) political freedom, language, culture, and, eventually, our state.”
Valerii SMOLII: “Actually, there should be one warning. Only the presence of our own state can ensure the progress and prosperity of the people. And the absence of the state is a way to nowhere. And one can also state many ‘additional’ (secondary – but only in comparison to the central ones) warnings. They are the balefulness of egotism in social policy, selfishness of the authorities; warnings in the social-religious sphere; warnings regarding desperate struggle of numerous ‘parties’ and groups and orientations of these parties towards different centers of influence; a threatening regionalization (division into autonomies) of the state – think about the influence of anarchic, rebellious Zaporizhia and about what it meant for the state; warnings about the need to choose allies wisely, for we don’t live in a vacuum.
“All these questions are, in a way, connected with the present time. And yet the conclusion Valerii Stepankov and I formulated in the last chapter of our book about the Ukrainian national revolution seems to me to be the most urgent and topical one. It goes as follows: ‘We should remember that the most difficult and complicated problems of the state formation and protecting its independence should be solved relying only on our own forces and proceeding from, above all, the protection of national interests. Attempts to make their solution dependent on the help from somewhere and even the smallest compromise at the cost of sovereignty for the sake of the highest and most noble goals become a catastrophe for the nation and the state.’”
