Ця стаття є спробою окреслити та зрозуміти родинну метафорику, яка супроводжувала один
із найважливіших ціннісних політичних орієнтирів для Війська Запорозького – поняття вітчизни.
Козацька батьківщина традиційно зображувалася в образі матері, про благо якої повинні були турбуватися її символічні діти. На що вказувало таке порівняння, кого зараховували до «синів» та
«батьків» вітчизни – ось питання, на які ми намагаємося знайти відповіді. Тому сконцентруємо
свою увагу на аналізі та порівнянні згадок про козацьку вітчизну в літературних творах та кореспонденції представників Війська Запорозького в означений хронологічний період.
The concept of fatherland was one of the most important values and political guides for Zaporozhian
Host. Therefore, its coherent metaphor requires a peculiar attention of scholars. Usually, the Cossack
fatherland was depicted as an image of mother that should be tutored by her symbolic children. What was
the meaning of the mother’s image? Who and why were included as the children of the fatherland? What
was the role of the rulers in this context? These are main questions of the research. The image of mother was
applied not only to the concept of fatherland but also, frequently, to a member either of church or the
orthodox faith. Seldom was it used for a monarch or Zaporozhian Host. Undoubtedly, the image underlined
the shared ancestry of the whole community from one symbolical mother. A prominent feature of the
metaphor was the implication of unanimity of the community. It is brightly proved by the cases when the
image of mother was not applied to a particular object, but conversely, to an abstract unity. An important
condition to join the community of the symbolical children of the Cossack fatherland was the origin.
Although usually mentioned, it was largely neglected. The ascertainment of the political loyalty and benefit
for the fatherland allowed to be counted as a “son” of the Cossack fatherland for people of a “distinct”
territorial, social, or ethnic origin. The sovereign was traditionally depicted as “pater patria.” Nevertheless,
in the Cossack discourse, this honorable title was ordinarily applied not to the monarchs but to hetmans.
However, the monarch acted like anointed by God; he was never a member of Cossack community and the
Cossack fatherland. However, the features of hetman as “pater patria” were only a poetic glorification of a
“hero”. It cannot be regarded as an official institutional role of hetmans. Thereby the attention to metaphor
coherent to the concept of fatherland helps us to orientate in the political scene of the world of the members
of Zaporozhian Host.
