466 FRANK E. SYSYNhow easily the Commonwealth's administration could be paralyzed bynobiliar liberty.The attitudes expressed in the "Discourse" marked the end of thetolerant, multireligious, and multinational Commonwealth in whichthe Orthodox and Ruthenian traditions could take full part. TheDiscourser saw his fatherland and republic exclusively as Catholic andPolish. The triumph of these new attitudes brought the Commonwealthto disaster in the Ukraine, and their enduring potency made theCommonwealth a very different society at the end of the seventeenthcentury than it had been in the sixteenth. The assimilation of theRuthenian elite and the weakness of Ruthenian political traditionsmade the ideological shift possible, but the transition was far fromsmooth. The "Discourse" reflects a moment when pressure was buildingagainst those who persistently resisted the process. As late as the1640s some Ruthenian Orthodox nobles insisted that the SarmatianRuthenian nobles had freely joined the Commonwealth and wereequals of the Sarmatian Poles. 62 This variant of Sarmatian theory hadserved to unite diverse lands and peoples into a pluralistic Commonwealth.The Discourser does not mention Sarmatism, but intrinsic tohis discussion of the nobility and the fatherland is the new, narrowSarmatism of the militantly Polish-Catholic nobility that was totriumph in the second half of the century.The Discourser depicted the Khmel'nyts'kyi revolt as a battle ofPoles, Catholics, and nobles against Ruthenians, Orthodox, and commoners,particularly Cossacks and peasants. He gave characterizationsof the constituency of each camp, yet neither camp approached hisideal concept of it. The Discourser, like any effective political polemicist,chose not to delve into the complexities of the situation. Inreading his text, or any other contemporary account of the revolt, caremust be taken to distinguish how the prism of political culture andverbal convention shaped the portrayal of the revolt. The "Discourse"is but one entrée into the world of the adversaries who confrontedeach other in 1648. The examination of other political works, historicalwritings, and correspondence will <strong>also</strong> enrich our understanding oftheir concepts, conventions, values, and programs.<strong>Harvard</strong> <strong>University</strong>62This view was expressed by Adam Kysil in a speech delivered at the Diet of1641. Part of this speech is published in S. Golubev, Kievskii mitropolit PetrMogiła, 2, pt. 2: 153^54. Views on the free union are contained in the pamphlet,"Supplikata . . . ," republished in Z dziejów Ukrainy, pp. 99-111 (especiallyp. 101).
A Century of Moscow-UkraineEconomic Relations: An Interpretation*I. S. KOROPECKYJIntroductionThe Ukraine was integrated politically and economically into theRussian Empire in the middle of the eighteenth century. From thattime up to the Revolution of 1917, the Moscow government treatedthe Ukraine as just another region of the empire. Since the Revolution,the Ukraine has been organized into a constituent union republicof the USSR, and the Kiev government has nominally possessedextensive political and economic prerogatives. In reality, however, alldecision-making powers have been concentrated in the hands of theunion government in Moscow. Consequently, the economic interestsof the Ukraine were subordinated first to those of the entire RussianEmpire and subsequently to those of the USSR, as perceived by theauthorities in Moscow. An important question that arises is whethertsarist Russia and the Soviet Union have differed in their treatment ofthe Ukraine. In addressing this question, the present discussion coversapproximately the last one hundred years, with the Revolution of 1917being the divide between the tsarist and Soviet eras.In the manifold economic relationships that exist between any tworegions of the same country, the transfer of national income, budgetaryrelations, trade, flow of resources, and institutional influences areprobably the most important elements. The discussion of all suchrelations between the Ukraine and the rest of the Russian Empire/USSR over one hundred years is beyond the scope of one article. The* I am grateful to Frederic L. Pryor and two anonymous referees for helpfulcomments on an earlier draft of this paper.