HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES - See also - Harvard University

SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY VIEWS ON THE KHMEL'NYTS'KYI UPRISING 465tance. The resilience of the political culture of the Commonwealth inthe face of adversity reflected the nobles' dedication to it. Yet, withoutreform the Commonwealth could not compete with its changing neighbors.The state's weaknesses were already apparent before 1648. The"Discourse" exemplifies the attitudes that brought about the disasterof 1648 and then blocked attempts to come to terms with the problemsthat brought on the revolt.At the root of the trouble were a noble ideology and an idealizedconception of the Commonwealth that were malfunctioning in theUkrainian lands. The Discourser recognized that exploitation andabuse had driven the peasants and Cossacks to revolt, but dedicationto noble liberty, as he understood it, precluded any criticism of thosenobles at fault. He acknowledged the might of the Cossacks, but hisconcept of the proper social order of the Commonwealth ruled out"incorporating them into the Fatherland." He condemned Rutheniancommoners for preferring Turkish servitude to living freely and tranquillyin the Commonwealth, but he was unwilling to grant commonersthe rights that would make a free and tranquil life possible. Thedissatisfied Cossacks, burghers, and peasants in the Ukrainian frontierlands were hardly passive subjects, but the Discourser was unwilling tomake any concessions to win their loyalty to the Commonwealth. His"Fatherland" was for nobles only and he proposed a fight to the deathto preserve it that way.The text we have discussed here provides insights into why theCommonwealth failed to cope with the revolt. The reluctance of thegovernment's ruling faction, led by Ossoliński and Kysil, to abandonlong-term political plans and devote all efforts to putting down therevolt gave the rebels the opportunity to gather strength and engenderedmistrust in many circles. In the "Discourse" this mistrust takesthe form of condemning candidates to the throne who negotiated withthe rebels and insinuating that the rebels had support from the governingcircle. The Discourser, like many disaffected with the government'spolicies, idealized Wiśniowiecki, an opponent of the rulingfaction who had vowed to fight to the end for no changes in the oldorder. The text itself was probably written by someone in Wiśniowiecki'scircle to discredit Ossoliński and Kysil. Catholic bigotrypushed many nobles into supporting Wisniowiecki's intractable position.Thus the "Discourse" represents the thinking of the faction thatlacked the means to enact its policy, but could and did block attemptsat a negotiated settlement. This impasse of factions in 1648 showed