HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES - See also - Harvard University

446 FRANK E. SYSYNAlthough social radicalism was little evident in the rebels' pronouncements,the anti-rebel forces depicted the revolt as a bloodyjacquerie against society and civilization. They condemned the Cossacksas the driving force of the revolt and portrayed the uprising as arebellion of subjects against their lawful masters. This perspectivesuffused almost all writings from the anti-rebel camp, although proponentsof accommodation did mention some of the rebels' grievances.33The "Discourse" conforms closely to the dominant ideology of theCommonwealth in its description of social groups and their position inthe revolt. It divides society into nobles (szlachta, ordo equester) andcommoners (pospolitość or, negatively, chłopstwo). 34The tract isaddressed to the first group, so as to rally it to defend the Commonwealth.It condemns the second group as the source from which therebels were drawn. Hence the Discourser entitles his work "On thePresent Cossack or Peasant War," emphasizes the base origins of therebels, and labels the rebellion as a manifestation of baseness. Hedescribes the "barbarous" acts of the rebels in detail, particularly theirattacks on nobles. It is true that in explaining the causes of the revolthe offers implicit criticisms of existing social and economic conditions,but he never proposes a change in the socioeconomic system. HisZamitky do istorii ukrains'koho derzhavnoho budivnytstva ν XVII stolitti (Vienna,1920). Social and political thought in the period is examined in the recent Ph.D.thesis by Stephen Velychenko, "The Influence of Historical, Political, and SocialIdeas on the Politics of Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi and the Cossack Officers between1648 and 1657" (London School of Economics, University of London, 1980).33See Baranowski and Libiszowska, "Problemy narodowowyzwoleńczej walki" ;Franko, "Khmel'nychchyna 1648-1649 rokiv v suchasnych virshakh"; andWójcik, "Feudalna Rzeczypospolita wobec umowy w Perejasławiu." Letters forma particularly useful source on attitudes. See the large collection for 1648 in Księgapamiętnicza, pp. 1-361, and the works cited in fn. 2.34For mentions of the nobles and nobility, see lines 50-52 (where he indicatesthat gradations within the nobility are important), line 66 (a discussion of peasantsand their lords, panowie), line 116 (the Cossacks' inability to struggle against theirlords), and lines 124,139,145,158,162,164,174 and 178. While the terms used fornobles are few, those for commoners are numerous. Only once is the neutral termpospolitość used (line 69). Otherwise, the Discourser favors chłopstwo to describeCossacks, peasants, and rebels. Although derived from chłop, the word forpeasant, here chłopstwo is derogatory for men of base birth — reflective of theideology which did not differentiate between Cossack and peasant. There is littlediscussion of the burghers, so there is little material on how they fit into the socialdivide. For mentions of commoners and various men of base birth and theircharacteristics, see lines 3-4, 36-38, 46-47, 115-16 (the Cossacks as chłopstwo),120 (blood that is ignobili, plebeio, rustico), 124, 153-54, 159-60 (rebels andchłopstwo linked together). Frequently the nobility and the baseborn are placed inopposition.