Українська державна ідея за гетьманування Івана Виговського: візія Михайла Грушевського

Abstract

У статті розглядаються ключові проблеми гетьманування Івана Виговського (з поміж яких визначальна – Гадяцький договір 1658 року) у працях Михайла Грушевського. Підкреслюється неоднозначність ставлення вченого до українсько-польського компромісу 1658 року. З одного боку, дослідник високо поціновує І.Виговського та його однодумців за усвідомлення ними наріжної ідеї суспільно політичного розвитку українства – необхідності власного національно державного буття – й спробу юридичної фіксації її у відповідних пунктах «Великого князівства Руського». З другого – наголошує на низці чинників, які обумовили «нежиттєздатність» унії й безперспективність польського зовнішньополітичного вибору І.Виговського.

The key problems of Ivan Vyghovsky’s rule (the main problem among them – is Gadiatskiy pact in 1658) in Mykhailo Grushevskiy’s works are considered in the article. It’s emphasized the scientist’s ambiguity in treatment of polish Ukrainian compromise in 1658. On the one hand the researcher highly evaluates Ivan Vyghovskiy and his like minded persons for their realization the basic idea of social and political development of Ukrainian nation, the necessity of being independent and trying to legalize it in the appropriate paragraphs of “Big kingdom of Russia”. On the other hand emphasizes the factors which caused the union “lack of vitality” and hopeless of I. Vyghovskiy’s polish foreign policy choice. In the scientist’s conception the compromise of 1658 is the result of a combination of a set of factors, opposing tendencies, which had a deep foundation; the current geopolitical realities. For the «Zaporizhzhya Army» it was seen as a salvation from the expansionist, incorporationist policy of Muscovy, the mechanism of affirmation of the Orthodox « Grand Duchy of Rus» as an equal component of the reorganized Commonwealth. Mykhailo Hrushevsky, while paying tribute to the Treaty of Hadiach as a political and legal act, which testified to the level of state thinking of the then Ukrainian elite, indicates, at the same time, his doom. First of all, the historian observes that the treatise was in a hurry, under pressure of circumstances, it may have a temporary character. The most dangerous thing in the treaty is the «... competition of the Cossack and Nobility element ...». The researcher believes that the basis of the Hadiach Union was nobility, because it was called «... to restore the economic and political affluence ... of this social stratum ...». Even the acquisition of the nobility`s rights by the Cossack sergeant «... meant only the strengthening of the nobility stratum against the Cossack masses». Therefore, for the Cossack public (for the common people - moreover, because it was not mentioned in the treaty) the union was unacceptable. In addition, the weak power of the Commonwealth government was incapable of fulfilling allied obligations to the «Zaporizhzhya Army» and the magnate-nobility community has demonstrated its inability to engage in relations with it on a parity basis. In contrast to the Hadiach apologists in 1658, who admired the preferences for the Ukrainian in the field of education and culture. Mykhailo Hrushevsky convincingly states: «For us, from a retrospective perspective, it is quite clear that the Hadiach Union did not look to be successful ...». In fact, only a formal Ukrainian-Polish compromise on the 6th(16th ) September 1658, could have been the basis of a federal union of Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania: the really progressive provisions of the treaty, which were proposed by Y. Nemirich - I. Vyhovsky, were already limited in time by signing it near Hadiach ; then - substantially eliminated in the process of ratification by the Warsaw Sejm; The illogical view of the coexistence of the Cossack emancipated Ukraine with the state-regulated Crown (with privileged nobility and followed by a feudal dependent slap) is seen in the «renewed» Commonwealth. That is why the Hadiach Treaty eventually became one of the decisive factors in defeat of Vyhovsky as a hetman. And at the same time it remains a Memorandum of such a desired mutual forgiveness and consent of the elites of the two peoples for a better life of each of them.