HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES - See also - Harvard University

THE 1630 ZAPOROZHIAN COSSACK UPRISING 169It was assumed that promises to discontinue the policy of imposing religiousunion and to grant various "liberties" to the Cossacks would attractthem to the claimant's side. Those plans were of particular interest in 1629when support from the Ottoman Empire and Muscovy in favor of Bethlen'sclaims seemed likely. In the spring of 1629, Bethlen's envoys, Charles Talleyrandand Jacques Roussel, arrived in Constantinople to enlist the assistanceof Patriarch Kyrillos Lukaris of Constantinople in influencing theCossacks in the appropriate direction. While promising to support the Transylvanianmission at the Muscovite court, Lukaris nevertheless dodged therequest concerning the Cossacks (Kryp"jakevyć 1913, pp. 83-85). As canbe seen from Andreas's report, his refusal was not accidental. In theimminent international conflict, the Greek clergy, while supporting BethlenGábor against Zygmunt ΙΠ, at the same time apparently wanted the lands ofthe Commonwealth—with an Orthodox population subordinated to the jurisdictionof Constantinopole—to come under the Orthodox Muscovite state.Why the proposal to the Cossacks came, therefore, not from Lukaris butfrom Patriarch Theophanes of Jerusalem is quite understandable if one considersthe role this Greek hierarch had played in the restoration of theOrthodox metropolitanate of Kiev in 1620. Theophanes's letters of February1630 to the tsar and to the patriarch of Moscow, with a plea to give almsto his courier who had suffered at the hands of the "Hagarites" (Muslims),are in the same archival folder in which Andreas's "statements" arepreserved. 2Apparently, it was at this time that the patriarch of Jerusalem,who was then in the Moldavian principality, decided to turn to the Cossackswith such a proposal. Either the patriarch knew that the Zaporozhian Cossackswere preparing for an uprising or he acted because of other factorswhich cannot be established at this time.The "statements under interrogation" also contain a number of otherreports of the uprising that partly confirm and partly supplement the datafrom other sources. Andreas's traveling companion, the elderly monkMelentios, who had traveled from Pryluky to Perejaslav on 2/12 May, wasan eyewitness to the hostilities which broke out in the area of Perejaslavbetween the Crown army and the Cossacks. According to the reports madeby Melentios, the Crown troops were unsuccessful in the initial clashes; thissupports the conviction that the similar testimonies of Hryhorij Hladkyj and2The Central State Archives of Early Acts (CGADA), Moscow, fond 52 (Russia's relationswith the countries of the Balkan Peninsula), op. 1,1630 g., no. 24, fols. 6-9.