Image of Mazepa Explored as Myth, Legend and in Fact at Oseredok

Winnipeg – National hero, traitor, romantic figure – fact, spin and fiction, history and mythology, these were some of the issues explored at The Age and Legacy of Mazepa (1687-1709), a symposium co-sponsored by Oseredok Ukrainian Cultural and Educational Centre and The Centre for Ukrainian Canadian Studies, University of Manitoba. Held November 28, 2009 in Oseredok’s Art Gallery with a backdrop of Legacy of the Cossack Elite, an exhibition of 17^th and 18^th century textiles and maps in Oseredok’s permanent collection, the symposium brought together five scholars who explored the various often divergent views about Hetman Ivan Mazepa, his place in Ukrainian history and culture.

The stage was set by Dr. Orest Subtelny, Department of History, York University in Toronto, in a presentation entitled  “Mazepa in the Context of East European History”. Subtelny expanded on two opposing values underlying the structure of Ukrainian and Russian elites. On the one hand, there is the Magna Carta – Polish Commonwealth model adopted by the Cossack elite, which held that there existed a social contract between the nobility and their sovereign as a guarantor of rights and privileges. In contrast to this is the very autocratic Russian model of the nobles as “the slave of the tsar”. These conflicting values lie at the core of understanding the diverging views on Mazepa as national hero and villainous traitor.

Prof. Radoslav Zuk of McGill University in Montreal spoke on “Mazepa and Baroque Church Architecture in Ukraine”. He traced the development of the origins of Ukrainian Cossack and Mazepa Baroque architecture to the Byzantine tradition, placing it within the context of Western European church architecture and connecting it to the folk tradition of Ukrainian wood architecture. He highlighted Mazepa’s contribution as patron of the reconstruction of old churches and the building of new ones in the architectural style that took his name, identifying them with the expression of cultural attitudes of the time.

Dr. Roman Yereniuk, acting director of The Centre for Ukrainian Canadian Studies, University of Manitoba, talked about “Russian Autocracy and the Fate of Mazepa – the Last Years”. He described the reaction of the Russian Orthodox Church to Mazepa’s “betrayal” and the role of the state, specifically, Peter I, in these actions. He provided a historical survey of liturgical condemnations of Mazepa proclaimed annually throughout the 18^th to 20^th Centuries. He concluded with an overview of the rehabilitation of Mazepa in the 20^th Century by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and, finally, provided some insight on the de-anathemising of Mazepa in the 21^st Century and the role of the Government of Ukraine in these rehabilitation efforts.

Dr. Myroslav Shkandrij, Department of German and Slavic Studies, University of Manitoba, presented a paper on “Mazepa in Russian Romantic Literature”. He traced the development of Russian iconic images about Ukraine created in the Early 19^th Century by Russian Romantics, a classic colonial image of a backward, violent, outdated country. He pointed out the mythmaking nature of Russian Romantic literature and its role in creating empire building allegories. In that context he compared Ryleev’s poem “Voinarovsky” with Pushkin’s “Poltava”.  He also alluded to the construction of Ukrainian counter myths to those of the Russian Empire, mentioning writers such as Shevchenko, Lepky and Ivanychuk.

Dr. Denis Hlynka, Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, University of Manitoba, presented an unusual view of the Mazepa legend in a paper titled “The Post Colonial Mazep(p)a: A Study in Globalization”. Tracing the genesis of the Mazepa legend from Voltaire (1731), Byron (1819) and Hugo (1829), to the popular culture in North America of the Late 19^th and the 20^th Centuries, he painted a story of transformation and mutability, the story of a “virtual” Mazepa.  This trans-media representation of the Romantic image of Mazepa is the final deconstruction of Mazepa, the historic figure.

This exploration of the age and legacy of Mazepa shed light on the role of Russian colonialism and imperialism, as well as the Russian Orthodox Church in the construction of an image of Mazepa as traitor and villain. It showed how Russian Romantic literature propagated this image and how Ukrainian writers constructed a counter image. It traced the genesis of the two opposing images to two social value systems related to a divergent understanding of a contract between a sovereign and his lieges. Finally, it charted the rehabilitation of Mazepa and concluded with a deconstruction of the legend of a “virtual” Mazepa in popular culture.