Chapter X: Book II: Anthropogeography (5)

The climatic difference is illustrated more clearly still when we consider the matter from the climatological side. Voyekov, the great Russian climato pzeshasiemlogist, expressly the slight cover of snow in the Ukraine, the relatively high temperature of the warmer periods of the winter, and the abnormally warm spring, which is due to the lightness of the snow-cover, which requires only a little of the spring warmth to melt it. The snow cover of Poland, Lithuania or Northeastern Germany is much more similar to that of Muscovy than the Ukrainian. The January isotherms in the Ukraine switch over from the N. to S. direction to the N. W. to S. E. direction. The isotherm of the typical Russian winter (January -8 to -10°) avoids the region of the Ukraine entirely. It is true that the Dnieper and Dniester have the same amount of ice as the Volga or the Dvina. But here the main consideration should be the period of freezing; the Dvina is covered over for 190 days, the Volga 160, the Dnieper in the Ukraine only 80 to 100 days, the Dniester 70 days. These are certainly greater differences. Still greater differences between the Ukrainian and the Muscovite climates become evident when we compare the length of the winter, or the time suitable for work outdoors. In Great Russia this time is at most four months; in the Ukraine, at least six and a half; and in its southern borderlands even nine months. Such differences play a great part in the life of the people. The time of the winter obstructions and enforced idleness is twice as great in Russia as in the Ukraine. The struggle with the cold takes on forms in the Ukraine which are entirely analogous to the Western European forms. In the Muscovite country we observe polar elements in the winter-life of the people. The Ukrainian winter does not depress the people, does not bore them to death, but only steels their bodies in the struggle with the cold and gives them the desired rest after the summer’s heat. The winter is the time of the most intensive social life among the Ukrainian peasantry.

The spring of the Ukraine, warm and sunny, has quite a different influence upon people to that of the cool, damp Russian or Polish spring. The sunny climate of the spring and the cloudlessness of the summer have produced in the Ukrainian a quiet, fundamentally cheerful temper. Yet, we find in him none of the gaiety which is characteristic of the people of the south as compared with the people of the north, but rather a quiet melancholy. It is just the Russians or the Poles that are of a much gayer sort than the Ukrainians, livelier, more easy-going in their social life, more frolicsome; not the Ukrainians, but the Russians and Poles, are the very ones that are vying with one another for the epithet of the “Frenchmen of the North” or “of the East,” respectively. (This remarkable fact is due, in the first place, to the unhappy history of the Ukraine). But, on the other hand, the melancholy of the Ukrainians is quiet, while the occasional melancholy of the Russians turns into despair and pessimism.

The Ukrainian summer and fall, warm and beautiful, has made the Ukrainian, in contrast with the Russian, a farmer par excellence. The warmth of these seasons is very similar to Southern European conditions, and gives to the life of the Ukrainian people many southern characteristics. The life in open communion with Nature, the accessibility of her organic treasures, is much more pronounced in the Ukraine than in Russia, White Russia or Poland. In the warm seasons the Ukrainian lives much of the time outside his house. In the day he works continuously in the field or in the garden, and even at night he usually sleeps outdoors in the orchard or the yard. If the fields are at a distance from the village, a large part of the population of the place camp out in the open fields for several days during harvest time. These are all characteristics of the life of the south. Yet we see in our people no real characteristics of the people of the south. Despite all this, the Ukrainian is much more domestic than the Russian, more frugal and more temperate; the “extravagant Russian nature” is entirely foreign to him. We have already seen that the Ukrainians do not have gay manners, and in like manner their activity of thought is less than that of the northern peoples, the Russians and the Poles. Yet the depth of thought of the Ukrainians is much greater, and their popular poetry incomparably deeper than that of the Russians or Poles. Dreaminess and reserve of character is much greater in the Ukrainians who live in the south than in the Poles and Russians who live in the north. All these are the effects of a sorrowful past. Only in one respect do the Ukrainians bear out their southern type of character; in their great abilities and their generally rich intellectual gifts. Every unprejudiced observer must admit that the Ukrainian peasant, almost the only typical representative of our nation, surpasses almost all his neighbors in his natural accomplishments.

The laziness and weakness of will peculiar to the southern nations compared to the northern, have not developed into a typical characteristic among the Ukrainians. The often remarkable indifference of the Ukrainian is rather an outgrowth of sad historical events than of the climate and the nature of the land in general. At most one might blame the great fertility of the black soil. For the faith in this fertility is almost never misplaced and favors the indifference of the peasant. On the other hand, the five hundred years of Tatar oppression were actually able to produce an inherited indifference. And why strive and work, when at any moment the Tatar hordes might come and take or burn everything?

Despite this historically inherited indifference, as we may call it, the laziness peculiar to southerners cannot be ascribed to the Ukrainians. They are better farmers than all their neighbors, with the single exception of those who adopted progressive farming, as, for example, the Prussian Poles. Domestic industry is also well developed among the Ukrainians, and the Ukrainian seasonal workers are actually sought after, especially in Germany, and earn a great deal. The Ukrainian harvest-worker is more sought after and better paid than the Russian. He works slowly but methodically, and achieves good results. The Ukrainian colonists find tolerable living conditions in places in which the Russian starves to death or from which he flees.

In like manner weakness of will is not a real peculiarity of the Ukrainians, in spite of their southern location. The thousand years’ struggle with piratical Asia, the independent establishment of two great state organizations, especially the second, after three centuries of slavery, the new awakening in the 19th Century under such difficult and hostile conditions, the splendid colonial expansion—all this speaks rather for great energy than for weakness of will. It is certainly true that in our people, oppressed by centuries of serfdom, energy and strength of character must hide beneath a thick crust of indifference, and our educated people find their energy weakened by the bad influence of foreign cultures. But these facts show most clearly that an enormous amount of energy and willpower is latent in the Ukrainian people, which, to this day, however, has not been properly developed.

Among historians and anthropogeographers it is a much used commonplace that the northern peoples always appear as conquerors who subjugate the southern peoples, and that they are always the founders of states in their particular climatic zones. The Germans overthrew the Roman Empire, the Northern Frenchmen founded the French state, the Northern Spaniards the Spanish, the Northern Italians, the Italian state, and the North Germans united Germany. It is natural, therefore, that this commonplace should be applied also in Eastern Europe. The “Northern” Russians have, by the natural necessity of history, “united” the “southern” Russians. The same explanation should be accepted as a necessity by the Ukrainians, and nothing should be done to resist this condition!

In reality this commonplace, like so many others, is false. The Ukrainians, as we have already observed, possess no such characteristics, as opposed to the Russians, as a southern race possesses with regard to a northern neighbor. To be sure, the Russian state now dominates the Ukraine. But the present Russian state is, after all, only a branch of the ancient Ukrainian Kingdom of Kiev. The ancient Ukrainian Kingdom subjugated the present Russian territory, organized it as a state, even partly colonized it, and gave it a ruling dynasty. The ancient Ukrainian state tradition was usurped by the Muscovite states, and gave them all the prestige which the Muscovite possesses. It was only the Tatar invasion that entirely held up the political development of the Ukraine, and, at the same time, favored the development of the Muscovite Empire. Only the Tatar invasion brought Moscow the supremacy over the Ukraine which Russia still enjoys. It was a foreign conquest, which has nothing to do with climatic influences. The very name of Russia only came into use in the time of Peter the Great!

From this survey of climatic influences, it appears, unequivocally, that the Ukrainians cannot be classed with the so-called southern peoples. The Ukrainians have all the characteristics of the races of the North Temperate Zone, who are the representatives of the European culture of today. The growth of national consciousness and of culture will, without a doubt, raise the Ukrainians to the standard of the European family of cultured nations. The nature of the country has, by means of its influences, given them all the necessary prerequisites.

The significance of the flora and fauna, for a lowland people like the Ukrainians, should be considered very great. From the physico-geographical description of the Ukraine, everyone will observe that the Ukraine may be naturally divided into two main parts, the forest country and the steppe country. The mountain formations take up only a comparatively small part of our territory.

Even among the Ukrainians themselves, the opinion is very widespread that they are a steppe-people. The enemies of the Ukraine have largely represented them in the eyes of Europe as a semi-nomadic steppe-people, devoid of all culture, which thru their growth and development might threaten the cultural treasures of Europe. These views, tho based partly upon the great part the steppe has played in the history of the Ukraine, and partly upon the unquestionable fact that three-fourths of the present Ukrainian territory lies within the steppe region of Eastern Europe, are, nevertheless, incorrect. For, a glance at the floral map of Europe is enough to show that the so-called old Ukraine, that is, the original Ukrainian territory, lies almost completely within the forest region. That means Galicia, Kholm, Western Podolia, Western Volhynia, Kiev, Chernihiv, etc. From here the most ancient Ukrainian colonization advanced to the Black Sea, only to lose all the steppe districts again upon the sudden nomad attack. For centuries the steppes of the present Ukraine were the stamping-ground of Mongolian-Turkish nomad tribes. The Cossack organization at last wrested great areas from them, and made these accessible to Ukrainian colonization. And only the last colonial expansion of the Ukrainians has been able to reach the Pontian shore again. The Ukrainians, then, were originally a forest and wood-meadow people. They have become in part a steppe people, but only thru their latest colonial expansion. And, just as today we would not call the English or the North Americans steppe peoples, merely because they colonized the American prairies and now inhabit them, so we can no more call the Ukrainians a steppe people, merely because they have colonized the Southern European steppes.

Not the steppe, but the forest and the wood-meadow are the native floral conditions of the Ukrainian. In the forest zone and in the adjacent parts of the forest-meadow zone, the seed of the Kiev State originated. In its expansion, this state first of all embraced the forest regions of the Ukraine, while the steppe regions were conquered later and kept under the dominion of the state for a comparatively short time only. The second center of the old Ukrainian historic life also lies within the forest zone of the Ukraine, namely, the Galician-Volhynian. Even the center of Ukrainian historical life that extended farthest into the steppe, the Zaporog Sich, was dependent for its existence upon the great wooded areas of the Veliki Luh on the Dnieper and its tributaries, and thus bound to the forest country.

The pronounced inclination of the Ukrainian people to agriculture, from the most ancient times down to the present, is another proof that it is a forest people, paradoxical tho it may seem. For it is an undisputed fact that, altho the steppes have apparently been most favorable to the cultivation of the grain grasses, and altho the present main centers of the grain production of the world lie in the steppe country of the prairies, pampas, Ukraine, yet nowhere in the whole world have the steppes brought forth an agricultural people. No steppe-people, anywhere, ever began agriculture of its own accord. The forest peoples had to teach the steppe-races agriculture in the first place. Only in case of bitter necessity do the inhabitants of the steppes take to the plough, and never has agriculture become part of their system to them.

How great was the part of the Ukrainian forest region in the past life of the nation has already been suggested in Book I. Only to the forests does the Ukrainian nation owe its preservation during the Tatar attacks. The forests were the only refuge of the people, to the forest zone the inhabitants of the steppes retreated whenever the steppes were threatened by the nomads, moving back again at a favorable opportunity.

The Ukrainian forests have also been of great importance as boundaries. The function of the forest to form important boundaries for races on a low grade of culture is familiar to anthropogeography. In Ukrainian history, too, this characteristic of the forests has appeared prominently. The forests of the Ukrainian Polissye were of great importance for the fencing-off of the East Slavic tribes, and by forming a wide zone, difficult of passage, separating the East Slavic tribes of the south from those of the north and west, they have contributed a great deal to the formation of the three East Slavic nations of today. In the days of the ancient Kingdom of Kiev, the centers in which the Muscovite nation later developed bore the name of Salissye (land behind the forest). There was a Pereyaslav Saliski, Vladimir Saliski, etc.

The significance of the forest as a boundary has also made itself felt in the internal history of the Ukraine. For the grade of culture upon which the Ukraine remained thruout the Middle Ages and in the early centuries of the modern era, the forests constituted good boundaries. The forest divided the population into small groups, which lived apart in separate clearings, every group living its own life. The forest made communication difficult and did not permit the organization of a powerful central state. The forest character of the old Ukraine was the natural chief cause of the formation of principalities in the ancient Kingdom of Kiev, and advanced that fateful particularism. It is not by mere accident that Kiev lies on the border of the forest zone of the Ukraine. Together with other causes, the thinner forests were an aid to the more rapid development of the Kiev principality, and made it the natural starting point for the great expansion under the reigns of Oleh, Sviatoslav, Volodimir.

From his original territory the Ukrainian took with him his great preference for trees, a love of trees which causes the white huts of a typical Ukrainian village to be bordered with the fresh green of leaves. The green of the trees in which the Ukrainian huts disappear, enables us immediately to differentiate a Ukrainian from a Russian village, which seems to be afraid of trees.

Consequently, the steppe is not originally native to the Ukrainian. The words of the Cossack song, “The steppes so wide, the joyous land” were not composed until the latter days of the Cossack organization. For centuries the steppe meant to the Ukrainian the terrible, mysterious, “wild field,” from which at every moment the nomad hosts, like a swarm of locusts, invaded the Ukraine. The struggles of the Kingdom of Kiev with the nomads show an anthropogeographer very plainly the reason of their final failure. The ancient Ukrainians, being forest dwellers, simply could not successfully fight the riders on the natural steppe or the artificial steppe of their own fields. The ancient Ukrainians did not feel at home in the steppe. A long evolution was necessary before the Ukrainians adapted themselves to the steppe, and the beginning of this adaptation was the Ukrainian Cossack organization. Not until after the formation and development of the Cossack organization could the Ukrainian people successfully advance into the steppe zone and colonize it. Yet the denser settlement of the steppes did not take place until toward the end of the 18th Century. Some of these early Ukrainian settlements have, to this day, not lost the character of new colonies. But these steppe districts were colonized by so great a mass of Ukrainian colonists, and they increased so rapidly in the fertile country, that today more than half the Ukrainians live in the steppe zone, and thereby favor the widespread commonplace that the Ukrainians are a steppe people.

The wealth of its flora and fauna very soon enabled the Ukraine to prosper. Very early it was called a land “where milk and honey flows.” This natural wealth of the organic world possessed the greater worth for the reason that it was not soon exhausted, and offered, as it still offers, to the population, an opportunity for constant work, enduring activity and steady development. The natural treasures of the Ukrainian territory are not the treasures of tropical countries which favor laziness, but the treasures of a more thrifty Nature, which require constant work to properly exploit them.

Man has changed the natural conditions of the flora and fauna of the Ukraine to a great extent. These changes are not as fundamental as in Western and Central Europe, but they have a great anthropogeographical significance. The forest zone of the Ukraine is thinned even beyond the normal and in places destroyed. The artificial steppe of the cultivated land has penetrated very far to the north and west. Certain plant species have become rare, others have entirely disappeared, while, on the other hand, new ones have been acclimated. The original wealth of game of the Ukraine is a thing of the past now, and the great abundance of fish is almost all gone. On the other hand, man has increased the number of domestic animals enormously.

All these conditions give to the Ukraine characteristics of a cultivated country. As we shall see further on, the degree of exploitation of natural resources is still very low, much lower than in the genuinely cultured countries of Europe.

Despite all this, the Ukraine must be considered a land exceptionally endowed with riches by Nature. Up to the present day this has been a misfortune, for from all sides strangers have come in to take with full hands of the riches of the Ukraine.

But the time has come, at last, in which the possibility lies in the hands of the Ukrainian people to make use in the future of the rich resources of the Ukrainian land for themselves.

ECONOMIC-GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEY OF UKRAINE

To give a lucid economic-geographical view of the Ukraine today is very difficult—almost impossible. The Ukrainian territory is divided among three states, and nowhere does the Ukrainian country form unbroken administrative units. Consequently, the official statistics cannot give an exact picture of the economic conditions of the Ukraine. The following attempt, also, can lay no claim to accuracy. A very heterogeneous and incomplete mass of material has made it impossible to attain the desired accuracy and uniformity.

The Ukraine differs from the cultural countries of Central and Western Europe first, in that its settlement is not yet complete, so to say. Only the northwestern regions of the “Old Ukraine” possess a sufficient density of population. The entire south and east are thinly, in places even very thinly, peopled. And the complete exploitation of the natural resources is still a far way off, even in the most thickly settled parts of the Western Ukraine.

In our economic-geographical survey of the Ukraine, we shall begin with the most primitive branches of the exploitation of natural resources and proceed from them to those that are more advanced.

HUNTING AND FISHING

The most primitive way of exploiting the natural resources of a country has always, and everywhere, been hunting and fishing. Both played a great part in the economic life of the Ukraine a thousand years ago. Our ancient chronicles contain many reports of the great abundance of game and fish in the Ukrainian land, and of their great importance for the population. Five centuries of Tatar warfare effectively interrupted the exploitation of these natural treasures, and even in the 16th and 17th Century the Ukraine still aroused the amazement of travelers from foreign lands, thru its great wealth of game and fish. In these centuries, hunting and fishing were among the main branches of industry of the Cossack border population of the Ukraine. As late as the second half of the 18th Century, hunting and fishing were still two of the main sources of industry of the Zaporog Sich. But soon agriculture began to gain ground in the regions ruled by it, the density of the population increased, and with it the fundamental strength of the Zaporog organization. This circumstance seemed threatening to the Russian government, and was the chief motive for the destruction of the Sich.

Today hunting has almost no significance in the economic life of the Ukraine. Altho in the year 1906, in Galicia, 500 stags, about 10,000 roes, over 2000 boars, about 90,000 rabbits, over 8000 pheasants, 50,000 partridges, 30,000 quail, 10,000 woodcocks, and 14,000 wild ducks were killed, the figures for other countries at the same time were much higher; in Bohemia which is more thickly populated there were brought down more than 800,000 rabbits, 1,000,000 partridges, etc. These figures show that in Galicia the natural wealth of game has declined considerably, while the artificial conservation of game has not yet begun. In the Austro-Hungarian part of the Ukraine, hunting has become a mere diversion of the upper classes—a mere sport. The hunting monopoly of the upper classes even bring to the country folk serious disadvantages, for boars and stags cause great damage to agriculture, especially in the Boiko and Hutzul country, and it is forbidden to keep them off. This circumstance encourages poaching, which in many districts is quite common. The extermination of beasts of prey, bears, wolves, lynx and wildcats is as a rule, undertaken only in occasional general chases, but the Ukrainian mountain-dwellers are very well able, despite all game laws, to defend themselves and their herds effectively from these wild animals. In 1906 more than 9000 foxes were brought down in Galicia.

In the Russian Ukraine the economic importance of hunting is as slight as in Austria-Hungary. Nowhere in this region do we find a developed, profitable hunting industry. Even in the Polissye hunting is not very important and is at most an avocation for a few forest settlers. Here rabbits, roes, boars, elk, grouse, wild fowl and water-game are sometimes hunted. Bison and beaver hunting is now very strictly forbidden. Many foxes and badgers are killed and a relatively large number of bears and wolves. Volhynia is much poorer in game, and still poorer are Podolia, and the districts of Kiev, Poltava and Kharkiv. In all the places, the most that one can get a shot at, aside from wild fowl, is rabbits and foxes, and sometimes wolves. In the forests and swamps of the Chernihov country there is a somewhat greater abundance of game. Hunting is most important, relatively, in the southern part of the Ukraine, on the Black Sea border and in the Caucasus lands. Besides roes, rabbits, and foxes, there are hunted in the steppes: wolves, sayga-antelopes and wild dogs; and in the Caucasus: bison, stags, bears, and lynx. The number of steppe and waterfowl, e.g., bustards, partridge, quail, wild geese and wild ducks, and of mountain fowl, as pheasants, mountain-quail, and grouse, is still considerable. Collecting the eggs of waterfowl is still a remunerative occupation. On the shores of the Caspian Sea 130,000 Caspian seals are killed every year.

Of much greater importance than hunting is the fishing industry. It is only a weak reminiscence of what it once was, yet it remains to this day an important economic element. The Ukrainian fishing industry is carried on in three regions: on the high sea, in the river-mouths, and in the interior of the land, in rivers, lakes and ponds.

The actual sea-fishing industry attains relatively slight results, on the average 24½ million kilograms a year. On the Black Sea, along the shores of Bessarabia, Kherson and Tauria, a great amount of mackerel, sardines, herrings and sturgeon-like fish are caught. The main fisheries of the northern Pontian shore are situated at the Kinburn bar, at the island of Tendva, in the Bay of Karkinit, at Cape Tarkhankut, at Eupatoria, Balaklava, Yalta, Sudak, and Theodosia. Fishing on the high seas, because of its great cost, is undertaken only by the large enterprising companies, who hire the Ukrainian fishing companies (artili) for the entire summer. Of late, fishing on a small scale has begun to develop. The small fishermen catch chiefly mackerel, which are then salted, or, less often, smoked. They also go after the small but savory Black Sea oysters, of which an average number of one million a year are gathered.

Far greater profit is yielded by the fisheries at the mouths of the rivers, in the limans, and particularly on the largest liman of all, the Sea of Azof. The annual yield here attains an average of 140 million kilograms. At the mouths of the Danube the chief fishing center is Vilkiv. Toward the end of the 19th century there lived at this place 900 independent fisherman, who sometimes united to form artils. Here they catch chiefly sturgeon and other fish of the sturgeon class (on the average 30,000 a year), and four and a half million of Pontian herrings. At the mouths of the Dniester, Boh and Dnieper, chiefly river fish are caught. Herrings and sturgeon-like fish are of minor consequence here. The fishermen in this region are always organized either in artils, in which the profits are shared equally among the members, or in so-called takhvi, which are hired by the entrepreneurs. The chief center of the fishing trade and of the putting up of canned fish, is Odessa. Yet the Bay of Odessa cannot compare with the Sea of Azof in fish production. The average value of the annual haul here exceeded a million rubles in the latter years of the 19th Century. Over 11 million kilograms of sturgeon-like fish and other large fish, besides 7 million herrings, were caught here annually. In some winters more than 70,000 fishermen, with 20,000 to 30,000 horses and oxen, gather on the frozen Sea of Azof. With gigantic nets, which are sometimes nearly two kilometers long, a very profitable fishing industry is carried on here. Important fishing centers, with great freezing plants and works for salting and smoking, are situated in Osiv (Azof) and Kerch. The members of the fisher artils come principally from the Poltava and Kharkiv country.

The Ukrainians may also claim a rather prominent part in the fishing industry of the Caspian Sea, which yields more than half a billion kilograms of fish annually. The Ukrainian Caspian fishermen come from Ukrainian colonies on the Volga, and from the eastern parts of the Ukraine proper.

The interior fishing industry on the rivers, lakes and ponds now has only slight significance. On the Dniester and Dnieper on the Pripet, Desna, Sula and Orel, and on the Donetz there still exist here and there fisher-artils, but the fish are caught only for local use. In the Polissye region the fishing industry still yields some profit, e.g., in the District of Mosir about 40,000 rubles a year, in the District of Pinsk only 3500 rubles. Lake Knias yields 10,000 rubles worth of fish annually. All of Galicia yields about 1,500,000 kilograms a year, of which two-thirds are contributed by the Ukrainian part of the country.

In examining the fishing industry of the Ukraine one cannot escape reminiscences that are painful. Everywhere a ruthless system of pillage and waste is carried on. The excessively fine meshes of the nets catch the young broods of fish with the old, and these are either sold for a few kopeks a pound or simply thrown away. The fish which come up the rivers to spawn are ruthlessly intercepted. A closed season or region barely exists, except on paper. We need not wonder, therefore, that the abundance of fish in the Ukraine is rapidly decreasing, and fishing is losing its importance more and more. Not a soul thinks of a rational method of breeding fish, of increasing the stock of fish in the streams. In Galicia a start has been made, but thus far the results are very slight. And yet the Ukraine, being an almost exclusively agricultural country, where there is no factory sewage to poison the rivers, could very easily recover its fame as a land abounding in fish.

The related industry of crab-fishing is not developed in the Ukraine, altho the Jewish dealers of Eastern Galicia send whole wagon-loads of crabs from Galician and Russian Podolia to the west. The old Zaporog regions have been famous since ancient times for their abundance of crabs. In Oleshki there also exists a drying-plant for crabs’ tails.

From this short survey of the hunting and fishing industry of the Ukraine, we perceive that these branches of industry play only a small part in the economic life of the Ukrainian population. A further proof of this fact is the small percentage of the population which engages in this work. This percentage amounts to 0.2% in the Russian-Ukraine; in the Austrian Ukraine it must be much smaller still.

FORESTRY

How extensive the wooded area of the Ukraine is cannot be determined exactly without detailed investigation, for the same reason that statistical figures concerning the Ukraine in other fields are difficult to determine. An approximate calculation of the forest surface gives us an area of over 110,000 square kilometers, that is 13% of the entire surface of the country. These figures show us that the Ukraine is one of the more sparsely-wooded countries of Europe. Of all the larger territories of our continent, only England, with its 4%, is poorer in forests. There remain only smaller territories, as Portugal (2.8%), the Netherlands (8%), Denmark (8.3%), Greece (9.3%). So old a land of culture as France still possesses 15.8% forest surface, Germany 25.9%, Hungary 27.4%, Austria 32.7%, Russia 38.8%. Among the large territories, the United States stand nearest to the Ukraine as far as their forest area (10.3%) is concerned.

The causes of the comparative lack of forests in the Ukraine are to be sought, first of all, in the fact that it includes large parts of the steppe region of Eastern Europe. The percentage of forest land in the various regions of the Ukraine show us this most clearly. The mountain regions still retain the highest proportion of forest. The Bukowina has 42% of forest (District of Kimpolung 78%), the Ukrainian region of Northeastern Hungary about 40% (Marmarosh 62%). Then come the Ukrainian regions of the forest zone: Polissye, from Minsk down 38.2%, Volhynia 29.6%, Galicia 25.4%, Grodno 25.5, Podlakhia, starting from Lublin, 25.1%, from Sidletz 19.8%. In the same class, as far as forest area is concerned, the Kuban region seems to stand. Besides the heavily wooded mountain region, this division includes the luhi in the foothill country and the treeless steppes; hence the percentage comes out very small—19.8%. The transition between the forest and the steppe zone is indicated by the following series: Kiev 18%, Chernihiv 15%, Podolia 10.9%, Kharkiv 8.5% of forest area. The steppe regions of the Ukraine have very little forest land: Kursk 7.1%, Voroniz 6.8%, Bessarabia 5.8%, Tauria (Yaila forests) 5.7%, Poltava 4.7%, Katerinoslav 2.4%, the Don region the same, Kherson 1.4%, Stavropol 0.3%.

In this distribution of forest we see a certain analogy between the Ukraine and the United States. Here the steppes are treeless, there it is the prairies. Here the forest predominates in the Carpathians, there in the Appalachians; here, just as there, we have zones of transition from forest regions to the steppes. But there is another point of similarity between the Ukraine and the United States—the ruthless exploitation and waste in forestry. This criminal waste is the second main cause for the lack of forests of the Ukraine. It began in the 16th Century and it still continues today. Historical sources mention great forest formations, even in those regions of the Ukraine which are now poor in forests. The “Great Forest” (veliki luh) in the Zaporog land, the “Black Forest” at the sources of the Inhul, the large forests of the Poltava and Kharkiv region, the Derevlan jungles, the gigantic forests on the Buh and Vislok, in the Rostoche, all have either entirely disappeared from the earth’s surface or have changed into miserable remnants, which, at any moment, may fall a final victim to human greed. A host of geographical names, in regions which are almost entirely treeless today, point to former forests. Thick, primitive oak trunks are found in the beds of rivers which flow only thru the treeless steppe-region. In five decades, in the second half of the 19th Century, the forest area of the Government of Kharkiv decreased from 10.9% to 8.5%, in Poltava from 13% to 4.7%, Chernihiv from 17.1% to 15%. Detailed investigations of the ground have proved that the forest area of the District of Poltava was originally 34% (now 7%), of the District of Romny 28% (now 9%) and of the District of Lubni 30% (now 4%). Similar conditions of forest devastation prevail everywhere in the Ukraine. Thus, the forest area of Galicia, for example, has decreased by 2000 square kilometers, i.e., almost 3% of the total surface area of the country, in the course of the last century.

We have already frequently called attention to the sad results of this criminal waste for the entire land. But, because of the low grade of culture of the nations dominating the Ukraine, the Polish nation and the Russian, no attention is paid to the fatal results of forest destruction. The forests are recklessly cut down for lumber, and year by year the scarcity of wood is being felt in most regions of the Ukraine. Only in Podlakhia, Volhynia, Polissye, and in the mountain regions of the Ukraine, is there no scarcity of wood. The three cubic meters of wood which, on the average, are due every inhabitant of the Ukraine, are not easily accessible to more than one-fifth of the Ukrainians. At the same time, the forests of the Ukraine are, as a rule, badly managed. Even in the Austro-Hungarian parts of the Ukraine there are very few professional foresters; in Galicia for example, 250 to 800. Conditions are still worse in the Russian-Ukraine. Consequently, the forest does not grow up again very well, and a great deal of wood is simply ruined. This happens chiefly in the mountain forests of the Carpathians, where hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of wood decay every year. In the regions which are poor in forests, the products of the woods are carefully and economically used, so that, for instance, from one hectare of forest in the Poltava region, 11.5 cubic meters of wood are produced every year; in the region of Katerinoslav, 7 cubic meters. Of the production of the Ukrainian forest, building wood constitutes only a comparatively small part. There is a crushing preponderance of firewood, especially in the regions which are poor in forests. Building wood, in large quantities, comes from the forests of the Polissye and of the Carpathians only. The export of building wood from Galicia and the Bukowina reached a million and a half cubic meters annually at the end of the century. The export of wood from the Polissye, starting from Minsk, exceeded 900,000 cubic meters. The complete production of Galicia in the year 1900 was 3,660,000 cubic meters of building wood and an equal quantity of firewood.

The reclaiming of forests, even in the Austrian Ukraine, where it is required by law, is not properly administered. It is still worse in the Russian Ukraine. Hence, the forest surface of the Ukraine is constantly decreasing instead of remaining unchanged or even increasing, as usually happens in the cultured lands of Europe. And yet, the Ukraine is one of those countries in which the forest problem is a life problem.

The Ukrainian people engage in the Ukrainian lumber industry only as labor-power, while the money profit goes to strangers—great landowners or middlemen. The forest-area which is in the possession of Ukrainian peasants is very small, even in Galicia, where at the time of the removal of the labor tax system, at least small patches of forest came into the possession of the peasant communities. Almost all the forests of the Ukraine belong to the large landowners, the clergy and the national lands.

The lumber industry and the industrial exploitation of the forest products engages but a slight part of the Ukrainian people. In the Russian Ukraine the percentage of such workers is barely 0.1%. In this percentage, however, the entire mass of Ukrainian peasants which seeks its incidental profit in forest work, is not considered. In the Carpathian regions of the Ukraine this percentage increases a hundredfold and more.

AGRICULTURE

Since the very first beginnings of the history of the Ukraine, the main occupation of its people has been, and has remained to this day, agriculture. To give a complete picture of Ukrainian agriculture is beyond the scope of our little book. Even a detailed economic study could not do justice to this task. Hence, we shall have to limit ourselves to its most important phases.

Almost nine-tenths of the Ukrainian people are engaged in agriculture. In the Russian Ukraine, the agricultural percentage of the population, according to official estimate, is 86.4%. This figure is probably correct for the Austrian-Ukraine as well, altho the biased calculations of Buzek place the percentage of farmers among the Ukrainians of Galicia at 94.4%. These figures show us very clearly the significance of agriculture in the economic life of the Ukraine. Now, a person seeing these figures and knowing the fertility of the Ukraine might easily imagine that agriculture here stands upon a high plane. Such a view, however, would be entirely false. Agriculture is on a very very low plane in the Ukraine.

Yet the causes of this sad state of affairs do not lie in the nature of the land. The climate of the Ukraine favors the cultivation of grains as no other does. Barely one small part of the steppe-zone is unfavorable to agriculture, because of its frequent periods of drought. The soil of the Ukraine is one of the most fertile on the whole globe. More than three-fourths of the Ukraine lies in the Black Earth Region, and many varieties of soil in the northwestern part of the Ukraine are by no means without value and at least equal to the best soils of Germany. Not in Nature, but in the cultural conditions, lie the causes of the low grade of Ukrainian agriculture.

The first and main cause is the lack of enlightenment among the people of the Ukraine. The Ukraine peasant cultivates his field entirely after the manner of his forefathers, which may have proved excellent a hundred years ago, and actually did make the Ukrainian peasant appear as the best farmer among his neighbors of other races, but they fail completely in these days of intensive cultivation of the soil. The illiteracy of the Ukrainian peasant renders almost inaccessible to him all the great progress of agricultural science. The old methods of cultivation, the primitive agricultural implements, waste his energy and his stock of living resources. The use of agricultural machines, which may be of great significance even in intensive farming on a small scale, is almost unknown to the Ukrainian peasant. The progressive amelioration of the soil and the national rotation of crops is not at all of wide application. And all efforts at enlightening the Ukrainian peasantry are hindered as much as possible by the governments dominating them, by their Polish and their Russian masters.

The highest level, relatively, in agriculture, is attained by the western borderlands of the Ukraine, Podlakhia, the Khohos country, and Galicia. The poorer quality of the soil has always required more intensive cultivation here. Besides, the influences of advanced methods of cultivation sifted thru more easily here, whether indirectly thru the Polish territory, or directly thru the influence of the German colonies. The greater enlightenment of the Ukrainian peasants of Galicia has brought it about that they now regularly apply rational rotation of crops and fertilization of the soil, even with artificial fertilizers, and possess pretty good agricultural implements. The three-field system has disappeared almost everywhere in this region, and continues in use only in the most fertile parts of Podolia. In the mountains, on the other hand, making land arable by means of fires followed immediately by planting, is still a procedure frequently met with. In the Polissye region burning is still frequently applied, but the two-field and three-field systems are used more frequently. On the same principle, agriculture is carried on in the northern parts of Volhynia, Kiev and Chernihiv. In the southern parts of these districts, as well as in Podolia, Poltava and Kharkiv, the three-field system predominates. Manuring is usually confined to small plots directly adjoining the farmhouse. Here, too, however, an advance to rational rotation of crops and to the multi-field system is undeniable. In the steppe zone the method of cultivation becomes more careless and the so-called fallow-system prevails. The steppe soil is cultivated for a number of years and then left lying fallow for some time. In very recent years, however, even the steppe-peasant has had to face the hard necessity of going on to the intensive methods of cultivation.

The agricultural implements of the Ukrainian peasants have undergone a great change. The primitive wooden plough, without metal mounting, has been retained only in places, in the Polissye region and the Carpathian country, more as a relic of the fathers than as an agricultural implement. In the entire central zone of the Ukraine, the typical Ukrainian plough, made of wood, with strong iron fittings, is used. Iron ploughs are rapidly coming into use. In the southern steppe zone of the Ukraine, the peasant has by far the best implements. Iron ploughs of different kinds are used here, in imitation of the German colonists, while sowing, harvesting, and also threshing machines are found as the property of large farmers or of agricultural co-operative associations.

It is possible, then, to note a certain progress in Ukrainian agriculture. The Russian and White Russian peasant is much more badly off, but the Ukrainian peasant, too, has a long way to go in order to reach the level of even the Ukrainian large landowners. Various agricultural co-operative associations are working to raise the standard of agriculture among the Ukrainian peasantry. One of these co-operative associations has 90 branches, 1100 local groups, and 27,000 members—the Eastern Galician “Silsky Hospodar.” Such associations would, if not hindered in their development (especially by the Russian Government), become of great importance in raising the level of the agricultural industry of the Ukraine, that ancient granary of Europe.

The second cause of the sad condition of Ukrainian agriculture lies in their unsound property conditions. The foreign conquerors, who were continually attracted by the fertility of the Ukrainian land, after taking possession of the land, divided it among their upper classes. The foreign conquerors have succeeded in denationalizing the Ukrainian nobility, have succeeded even in developing the republican Cossack organization into a new class of landowners and, very largely in russifying them. Foreign rule in the Ukraine has always supported foreign ownership of land on a large scale, and the Ukrainian peasant must be satisfied with small, mediocre and widely scattered bits of land.

Now for a few corroborative figures. In the Ukrainian part of Galicia the large estates embrace 40.3% of the total area. In the Governments of Chernihiv, Poltava and Kharkiv, the proportion of peasant-owned land is still rather large (53%, 52%, 59%), because here the property of descendants of the old-time Cossacks is included. Far worse are the conditions in other parts of the Ukraine. In Volhynia the peasant-owned land constitutes only 40% of the area, in Podolia 48%, in Kiev 46%, in Kherson 37%, in Katerinoslav 45%, in Tauria 37%, while in the Polissian Government of Minsk the peasants retain only 28% of the land.

The results of such unsound property conditions are fatal to the ever-increasing density of the peasant population. Land-famine has become chronic all thru the Ukraine. The parcelling out of the large estates which began with such fine results in Galicia a few years ago has now come to a halt, and the Stolypin radical agrarian reform in the Russian Ukraine has thus far only slight results to show. To be sure, the amount of property of the medium landowners is decreasing, but the giant estates are not only not losing ground, but even show a steady, tho gradual, growth.

As a result of the ever increasing scarcity of land, the Ukrainian peasants are splitting up their property more and more, trying to rent as much land as possible from the large landowners, and seeking subsidiary occupations in domestic work; but a large percentage find it necessary to leave their fatherland and to seek homes in Caucasia, Turkestan, Siberia, Canada, Brazil and Argentina. And this sad fact need not amaze us. For, while the foreign colonists who settled in Southern Ukraine upon the invitation of Catherine II were given 65 hectares of land per head, the Ukrainian peasant, after the abolition of serfdom, in 1861, was given a maximum of 3½ hectares, and in many cases only 1½ hectares per head. In half a century the rural population has doubled, while the area of cultivation has not increased perceptibly at all. Thus, there existed in the Government of Poltava, as early as twenty years ago, more than 60% of peasant-farms with an area of cultivation of only 1.3 desiatins, while another four percent of estates occupied more than 5 desiatins. How can one speak of progressive farming under such property conditions? Those 60% of peasant farms resemble very closely the sort of plots occupied by cottagers or squatters. And the consequence: 62% of the emigrants who emigrated to Russian Asia in 1910 came from the Ukrainian governments, that “granary” of Russia. And not only from the thickly populated districts of Kiev or Poltava, but also from the comparatively thinly populated, very fertile districts of the Ukraine—from Kherson, Katerinoslav and Tauria.

The third reason for the sad condition of Ukrainian agriculture, is the community ownership of land established in the Eastern Ukraine. The basis of their system, which is in vogue everywhere in Great-Russia, is that the land is not owned by the individual peasant, but by the entire community, which apportions it among its individual members. This Muscovite property system is unbearable to the Ukrainian peasant and causes him to neglect his land, since it does not really belong to him. It does not pay him at all to cultivate the ground better than his neighbor, since, in the new apportionment, the carefully improved patch may fall to someone else.

If, therefore, despite all these unfavorable conditions, the agricultural production of the Ukraine and its exports of food stuffs are very great, this fact is due, above all, to the great fertility of the Ukrainian soil and the economic policy of the large landowners, who, in spite of the frequent danger of famine in their own country, continue to export the products of their great estates beyond the borders of the land.

After these general observations, we proceed to a short survey of agriculture in the Ukraine. None of the European countries (with the exception of Russia) possesses as great an area under cultivation as the Ukraine. It amounts to more than 45 million hectares, that is, more than 32% of the area of cultivation of European Russia, which is six times as large as the Ukraine. The proportion of the area of cultivation in the Ukraine is nearly 53% of the total area of the country. In this respect the Ukraine is surpassed only by France (56%). In Germany, the proportion is only 48.6%, in Austria 36.8%, in Hungary 43.1%, in Russia 26.2%. To be sure, the proportion of the cultivated area is very different in different districts of the Ukraine. The most agricultural land is found in the steppe and transition regions: Kherson 78%, Poltava 75%, Kursk 74%, Kharkiv 71%, Voroniz and Katerinoslav 69% each, Podolia and Tauria 64% each, Bessarabia 61%, Kiev 57%, Chernihiv 55%. The forest regions possess much less farm land: Galicia 48%, Grodno 40%, Volhynia 37%, Minsk 24%, etc. Besides this, the farm land within each of the above mentioned regions is diversely distributed. In Galicia, for example, the area of cultivation is apportioned as follows: In Eastern Podolia 75–80%, in Western Podolia 60–75%, in Pidhirye only 20–30%, in the Hutzul country only 10%, of the total area. Similar conditions prevail in the Bukowina, in Upper Hungary, Caucasia. In the level regions of the Ukraine these local differences are slighter.

To calculate the general agricultural production of the Ukraine is difficult, if not impossible. By combining various reports, we get, for the yearly average in the beginning of the 20th Century, a grand total of 150 million metric hundred weights. (This number, however, includes only the wheat, rye, and barley production.) In this respect, the Ukraine surpasses all the countries of Europe except Russia. Its production is greater than that of Austria, Hungary or of France, to say nothing of other European States.

Following are several figures about the harvest yield of the Central regions of the Ukraine in 1910. Volhynia produced 73.4 million puds (1 pud = 16.4 kilograms), Kiev 113.4, Podolia 115.9, Kherson 188.6, Chernihiv 40, Poltava 113.6, Kharkiv 95.9, Katerinoslav 194.9, Tauria 138.3, Kuban 214.4 million puds. The total yield of the central regions of the Ukraine (without the borderlands, which also produce a great deal, as for example, parts of Kursk, Voroniz, the Don region, etc.) totalled 215 million metric hundred weights, and was, consequently, six times as great as the harvest yield of Russian Poland, and comprised 39% of the total production of European Russia and over 33% that of the entire Russian Empire. If we consider now that the Russian Ukraine comprises only a twenty-ninth part of the gigantic Russian Empire and barely one-fourth of its population, we recognize the great importance attached to the Ukraine as the granary of Russia.

Among the species of grain grown in the Ukraine, wheat is without doubt of the first importance. In the Southern Ukraine wheat takes up half the area of cultivation, decreasing rapidly toward the north and west. In the Government of Kherson the wheat fields cover 51% of the cultivated surface, in Katerinoslav 50%, in Tauria and in the Don region 49%, in Bessarabia 36%, in Podolia 30%, in Kharkiv 29%, in Poltava and in Kiev 22%, in Galicia 14%, in Volhynia 11%, in Grodno 4%, in Minsk 3%, in Chernihiv only 1%. In Kiev, Podolia, Volhynia, Galicia, more winter wheat is raised; in the Southern Ukraine, more summer wheat. The mean annual yield per hectare is 10½ hl. for winter wheat and 7½ hl. for summer wheat. The mean annual yield of wheat in the first decade of the 20th Century in Russian Ukraine was 68 million metric quintals, that is, over 46% of the production of European Russia. (In Eastern Galicia it was 1.9 million q.). The chief centers of wheat production in the Ukraine are Kuban (17 million q.), Katerinoslav (12.4 million q.), Kherson (12.4 million q.), Tauria (9 million q.), Poltava (6.3 million q.), Podolia (5.8 million q.), Kharkiv (4.9 million q.), Kiev (4.2 million q.), Stavropol (3.3 million q.), and Volhynia (2.7 million q.). Wheat is one of the chief exports of the Ukraine.

Rye is cultivated chiefly in the northern and western districts of the Ukraine, where it is the chief grain used for breadmaking. In Chernihiv, Minsk and Grodno, rye takes up 48% of the farm land, in Volhynia 38%, in Poltava 3%, in Kharkiv 29%, in Kiev 28%, in the Don region 22%, in Katerinoslav and Podolia 19%, in Tauria 18%, in Kherson and Galicia 17%, in Bessarabia only 7%. Rye (almost everywhere winter rye) yields on the average 10½ hl. per hectare. The chief districts of production are Poltava (55 million q.), Volhynia (4.9 million q.), Kiev (4.8 million q.). The total rye output of the Ukraine is as high as 42 million q., that is, over 20% of the Russian output.