HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES - See also - Harvard University

SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY VIEWS ON THE KHMEL'NYTS'KYI UPRISING 463and language. As they adopted the Polish language and RomanCatholic faith, the more affluent nobles were intermarrying withfamilies from the Polish heartland. Resistance to this process, particularlyregarding religion, came from the minority of nobles who rose todefend "Rus'." This group would disappear by the end of the century,but at the time the "Discourse" was written it was still active.The Discourser retained the concept of the Ruthenians and Poles astwo socially complex communities living side by side at the same timethat he chose to emphasize the new interrelation created by themigration of Polish nobles to the Ruthenian lands and the assimilationof the Ruthenian elite. In the Commonwealth only nobles were part ofthe political nation; hence Ruthenians and Orthodox were disappearingfrom the body-politic. The Commonwealth was becoming a state ofone "noble nation" (naród szlachecki) that was Polish and Catholic,and the divide between Pole and Ruthenian was becoming that betweennoble and commoner.The "Discourse" gives evidence of national antagonism, as well as ofthe changing relation between the Ruthenian and Polish communities.It shows that in the mid-seventeenth century naród could be definedin ways remarkably similar to a modern historical-cultural nation,rather than only in terms of order (e.g., noble nation) or political andterritorial divisions (e.g., Prussian nation, Volhynian nation). Butdoes national tension emerge as a major cause of the revolt? Otherthan the charge that the rebels may be planning to form a Ruthenianprincipality, the "Discourse" says little about the goals of the Ruthenianrebels. It would appear that the pernicious influence of Orthodoxyand the jealousy of the Ruthenians were sufficient reasons for periodicrebellions. In fact, the Discourser had even less evidence of thehostility of the Ruthenians against the Poles than of the hostility of theOrthodox against the Catholics as a direct cause of the revolt. FewRuthenian institutions existed in the early stage of the revolt andRuthenian political goals were amorphous. Many influential Ruthenianswere loyal to the Commonwealth in 1648 and the Rutheniannobility did not lead the revolt as an organized group. The Ruthenians'rebelliousness against the Lachs may well have sprung primarily fromreligious and social grievances, rather than national ones.The "national" factor in the "Discourse" consists of a description ofRuthenian-Polish hostility rather than of a planned revolt with definitegoals by a Ruthenian leadership against Polish rule. Perhaps the mostrevealing aspect of the text is the degree of antagonism that the