Chapter VII: Book II: Anthropogeography (2)

There are two reasons for the universal ignorance of the anthropogeographic conditions of Russia which exists even in the ranks of renowned scholars. The first cause lies in the sources from which scholars, and subsequently publicists, draw their knowledge of the subject. Now the official Russian sources on the basis of which an anthropogeography of Eastern Europe would have to be written are not immune from serious criticism. The ranks of Russian scholars have always worked in the interests of the Russian political idea, and latterly, caught by the mighty wave of Pan-Slavic-Russian nationalism, they are doing their best to represent as actual fact whatever Russian governmental politics would desire to be fact. Russian geography, ethnography, statistics, history, have always worked in accordance with approved “unifying” designs. Hence, European learning involuntarily sees all that exists and is coming into existence in Russia thru the spectacles put on it by official Russia. The same official Russia comes to meet the European traveler upon every step of his journey, and guides him in such a way that he may be sure not to see below the general official Russian varnish what is actual and true. Besides, there is the Russian censorship, which even now, after the introduction of the constitution, takes very good care to veil everything from the view of the outside world, which, in the interest of the Russian political idea, should remain hidden.

The second cause of ignorance as to the anthropogeography of Russia lies in the subject itself. The Eastern European family of races inhabiting Russia is so different from that of Western and Central Europe in its evolution and composition, that the anthropogeographical laws and methods which (as far as civilized peoples are concerned) are based upon Western European conditions, do not apply in the least in Eastern Europe. A difficulty confronts anthropogeography here, analogous to the difficulty which confronted geologic science when, fitted out with European stratigraphy, it sought to explore South Africa or India. The geologists, as representatives of a natural science, were readily able to find the way out, but the anthropogeographers, whose field is more that of a psychic science, have lost themselves in false assumptions and in commonplaces.

We must not wonder, therefore, if every critical reader of the preceding chapter is assailed by a host of questions: Why in the world are the Ukrainians, this second largest Slavic nation of the whole world, so utterly unknown? Perhaps Ukraine is only an ethnographic conception, and the Ukrainians only a branch of the Russian race, just as the Bavarians or Saxons are branches of the German people? Or are the terms “Ukraine,” “Ukrainian”, only outgrowths of the idle imagination of a few belated enthusiasts, who rave about a glorious past and a brilliant future, and represent what they are striving after as a fait accompli, and so forth.

Such questions, based upon deep ignorance of the anthropogeography and history of Eastern Europe, come up in this very 20th Century, even in the learned circles of scholars, publicists and politicians. To answer these and similar questions correctly, this little book has been written.

The Ukrainians are quite as independent a Slavic nation as the Czechs, Poles, White Russians, Russians, Serbs or Bulgarians. The historic roots of the Ukrainian nation extend just as far back into the early middle ages as the roots of the German, French or English nations. The old Ukrainian Empire of Kiev is of the same age as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. But, while the evolution of the great European nations was steady and uninterrupted, the Ukrainian Nation was hindered in its development by reason of its geographical position on the threshold of Asia. The Mongolian attack in the 13th Century shattered the state of Kiev and introduced the 500 years’ Tartar scourge. Weakened by the continual expeditions and slave-hunts of the Crimean Tatars, the Ukraine fell under the rule of Lithuania and Poland, who not only could not relieve the land of the Tatar menace but even added national, social and religious pressure. The instinct of self-preservation led the Ukrainian nation, in that troubled time, to create the splendid military organization of the Ukrainian Cossacks, and about the middle of the 17th Century, in a victorious war, to shake off the Polish yoke. Thus, the second Ukrainian state, the Cossack Republic, came into existence. By the Treaty of Pereyaslav (1654) it was ceded as a vassal state to Russia, which was related to it in religious faith. But Russia broke the treaties of suzerainty, shared the desolated Ukrainian land with Poland, and, after a century and a half, changed the autonomy of the Ukraine into abject serfdom. After Russia, in the partitions of Poland, had united almost the entire Ukrainian territory under its rule (with the exception of Eastern Galicia, Northwestern Bukowina, and Northeastern Hungary), it set all forces to work to destroy the national independence of the Ukrainians as well. In the 17th and 18th Centuries the Ukrainian Nation lost its upper classes—the aristocracy, the lesser nobility, the wealthy burghers—first thru Polonization, then thru Russification. It had left only its minor clergy, its lower middle class, and a completely downtrodden peasantry. Thus, at the end of the 18th Century, it seemed as if the last hour of the Ukrainian people had struck.

It is therefore easy to explain that in the 19th Century, when the national question became one of the most important problems of humanity, the two neighbor nations of the Ukraine, the Poles and the Russians, believed they had solved the “Ukrainian question.”

The views of Poles and Russians coincide absolutely in emphasizing one statement: “There is no such country as the Ukraine; no such people as the Ukrainians; there are only Poland and Russia; a Polish nation and a Russian nation.”

This complete agreement of both nations, whose giant states fought for two centuries for domination in Eastern Europe, may be easily understood. The Ukraine has always been the richest region of Eastern Europe in natural resources, the Ukrainians the second largest nation, the Ukrainian question the most important problem in every state commanding Eastern Europe. Now the Ukrainian nation was completely exhausted by half a thousand years of Tatar oppression and an equally long period of serfdom. So that it seemed an easy matter to the mighty neighbor nations to even deny the existence of the Ukrainian nation, to hold up its development, and gradually to absorb it.

The Poles, since their country lost its independence, have made heroic attempts to win back their freedom by armed uprisings. Despite all defeats, they have never given up their hopes of re-establishing the Polish Kingdom. But these hopes were never confined to the ethnographic territory of the Polish nation. The future Polish Kingdom was to have the old boundaries of the historic Poland—the Baltic and the Black Sea. Hence, the geographical conception of Poland, even to the scientific Polish geographers, still includes, besides the entire Polish ethnographic territory, Lithuania, White Russia and all of the Ukraine, as far as the Dnieper River and the Black Sea.

How could this historico-geographical conception of Poland be made to harmonize with the ethnographic conception of the Ukraine? The solution of this question seemed very easy to the Polish scholars and politicians. They simply proved that the Ukrainians constituted a part of the Polish nation, that their language was a provincial dialect of the Polish language, and that only the religious faith, a number of manners and customs, songs, etc., were slightly different from those of the Poles; these slight differences the common country folk might retain, likewise the educated Ukrainian might be permitted to keep his language and customs in private life, but in his political sentiments, in his culture, in his literary language, he must be and remain a Pole.

This Polish solution of the Ukrainian question is derived from the Polish “state-idea” of a Polish Empire extending from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Despite the fact that the history of the national relations of Eastern Europe clearly proved this solution false in the second half of the 19th Century, the opinion prevails in all important Polish circles, that the Ukrainian people merely constitutes an ethnographic mass which shall make a good foundation for the expansion of Polish culture and power.

This Polish theory in the Ukrainian question has not been detrimental to the development of the Ukrainian nation. That the Ukrainians are not a Polish people was quite clear to every Ukrainian at the very beginning of the relations of the two nations (11th Century). Among the masses the feeling of independence was always lively and strong, and only those of the educated Ukrainians credited Polonophile theories, who were the few members of Polish secret societies, plots, uprisings (1831, 1863), etc. Polonization, in former centuries, demanded many victims from among the educated Ukrainians; in the past half a century it has only very slight successes to show, altho the Ukrainians of Galicia still continue to be under the political and cultural influence of the Poles.

Much more dangerous for the Ukrainians was the other solution of the Ukrainian question. It, too, is derived from a state-idea, namely, from the idea of a Russian state which should unite all Slavdom, or at least, all of the one-time Empire of Vladimir the Great, under its scepter. In order to attain this end the “Theory of the Unity of the Russian Nation” was formed, as far back as the times of Peter the Great, who transformed the old Muscovite Czar state into an imperial Russian government, and later this doctrine was further developed. According to this theory the Russian nation consists of three tribes: the Great Russians, the Little Russians, and the White Russians, whose tongues differ from one another only dialectically. A common literary language, Russian, connects all the tribes; race, customs, history, political aspirations are the same for all three. Ukraine, Ukrainian, are only local names, which, however, bear a strong taint of separatism, and must, therefore, appear dangerous and inadmissible.

In the spirit of this theory of the unity of the Russian nation, the politics of the Russian state have, for more than two centuries, aimed incessantly to hinder the development of the Ukrainian nation, by means of the most ruthless oppression, and to degrade it to an ethnographic mass which, thru its increasing denationalization, should strengthen the Russian state and support its political expansion.

In a later section we shall be able to follow the individual phases of Russian state politics in regard to the Ukraine. We shall turn, now, to consider the great injury which the Russian unity theory has done to the progress of the Ukrainians as a nation.

The internal injury of the Russian unity theory to the Ukrainian peasantry is comparatively slight. The Ukrainian peasant in Russia is much more highly conscious of his national individuality as opposed to the Russian than as opposed to the Pole. The ethnologic culture of the Ukrainian peasantry is so much higher than that of the Russian, that the Ukrainian looks down with contempt upon the “rough Katzap.” This, as it were, ethnologic feeling of independence has protected the Ukrainian peasantry from Russification, not only within its national territory, but even in its distant Siberian or Turkestan colonies. Only a small part of the so-called village aristocracy, e.g., pensioned soldiers, village mayors, notaries, former city workmen who have learnt some Russian, try to murder the Russian language and to pass for Russians. The same is true of a part of the city proletariat. But the great mass is opposed to the Russian language and customs, and preserves its national individuality unchanged.

Far more serious injuries has the Russian unity theory caused among the upper classes of the Ukrainian nation. For the sake of office, honors and gifts of land, the Ukrainian nobility has, in the last two centuries, permitted itself to be Russified for the most part; likewise a host of government officials, military men, clergymen, etc. In the second half of the 19th Century the Russification of the educated Ukrainian circles has slackened its pace, altho, even now, there are in Russia a great many of the educated Ukrainians by birth who are completely Russified and the worst enemies of their own nation.

The Russian unity theory, in the sixties of the 19th Century, found its way into Austria-Hungary too, and founded the so-called “Russophile Party.” Its educated retainers, with few exceptions, do not even command the Russian language. Nevertheless, they call themselves Russians, propagate “the unity of the Russian People from the Carpathians to the Kamchatka,” and call their Ukrainian mother-tongue “a dialect of the Carpathian herdsmen and swineherds.” They speak and write a remarkable jargon consisting of Ukrainian, Russian and Church-Slavic words (the so-called Yazichiye); only in very recent years have they begun to use a bad Russian. Supported by considerable subsidies of money from Russia, the educated Russophiles are developing an active agitation among the peasants of Eastern Galicia, the Bukowina and Northeastern Hungary. The Russophile peasants of these countries, whose number is insignificant, to be sure, constitute a remarkable type of a seduced mass. They also try to speak the Yazichiye, use the old-fashioned “thousand-year-old” orthography, which is entirely analogous to the Russian and, at least, partly hides the differences between the Ukrainian and Russian languages, live in the illusion that the Czar speaks the same language that they speak, use the Russian national colors, and hate everything Ukrainian with the passion of the renegade.

These internal injuries of the Russian unity theory and the Russophile tide it has created are becoming slighter year by year. Ukrainian national consciousness is continually growing in the masses of the Ukrainian nation, and the Russophile wave would long since have disappeared if it were not for the Russian subsidies, and if certain Polish circles, frightened by the rapid advance of the Ukrainian national idea, were not working with all their might to prevent the fall of Russophilism.

Much more important are the external injuries done to the Ukrainian national idea by the Russian unity theory. They may be expressed in a single sentence: As a result of the absolutism of the Russian unity theory in the history, geography and statistics of Eastern Europe, the civilized world does not know that there exists in Europe a large country which is called “Ukraina,” and that in this country there lives a nation with a separate individuality, a nation of over thirty million souls, which bears the name “Ukrainians.”

It is true that, from time to time, since the beginning of the present century, magazine articles and pamphlets in various leading languages have appeared, which aim to inform the world about the Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. But these journalistic efforts have only an ephemeral value. Politicians only occasionally interest themselves in the Ukrainian question when it is brought to their notice. And scholars, however well-disposed, can not give such publications preference over the official Russian sources.

The young Ukrainian learning has thus far been unable to spread true information on the Ukrainian nation, and to establish the Ukrainian nation in the scientific world as an independent unit among the Slavic nations. Only in the historical field the independent position of the Ukrainians among the nations of Eastern Europe has been demonstrated, thanks to the compositions of a Kostomariv, Antonovich, Drahomaniv, Hrushevsky. In the fields of philology, anthropology, ethnology, ethnography and folk-lore, there are many treatises relating to these sciences, but there is no systematic exposition of the Ukrainian nation as a uniform whole in relation to these branches of science. In the anthropogeographic field the present lines constitute the first effort. In addition, all these treatises have appeared only in Ukrainian or Russian, and, consequently, remain inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of the European world of scholarship.

For these reasons science must depend upon the official statements. The official Russian geography considers the Ukrainians only as one of the three tribes of the unified Russian people. The official Russian statistics report this to the world. Hence, German, French and English geographic science, too, usually accounts for the Ukrainians as Russians. The names Kleinrussen, Petits Russes, Little Russians, do not mean an independent nation, but a tribe of the Russian nation. Such erroneous views may be found in all the general encyclopedias and lexicons, in all handbooks of geography and statistics. The Austro-Hungarian Ukrainians, who are mentioned in the official statistics as Ruthenians, are also to a great extent taken for a part of the Russian people which differs from the mass of Russians only in its Catholic faith, or more remarkably still, for an entirely independent little nation called Ruthenia, and differing both from the Little Russians and the Russians.

The results of such ignorance of the Ukrainian Nation in the scientific world are disastrous for the Ukrainians. Every appearance of the Ukrainians in the political and cultural arena remains enigmatic to the whole world. Enigmatic remains the struggle of the Ukrainians against Russia and particularly against its Russification policy. In case after case it is explained by far-fetched political, social and economic causes, but never by national-cultural reasons. For almost no one in Europe knows that in the Ukraine a great independent nation is struggling for its national life, and not a political or social party for its significance in the state. The struggle of the Austrian Ukrainians against the predominance of the Poles in Galicia seems hardly more reasonable to the foreigner than the striving of the Russian Ukrainians. Most incomprehensible here appears the struggle of the Ukrainians against the Russophile movements. For a long time it was regarded as insincere, or even as non-existing, and this circumstance has brought the Ukrainians innumerable political injuries.

From these briefly stated observations we see what obstacles are impeding the Ukrainians in their efforts to bring their Ukrainian nation to a point where it will be respected as an element of equal worth with the other nations of Europe. The two neighboring nations, the Polish and the Russian, politically and culturally stronger, are trying to divide the Ukrainians between themselves, and are refusing them the right to exist as an independent nation. Against these appetites for conquest the comparatively small army of educated Ukrainians is fighting with might and main, supported semi-consciously by the mass of the Ukrainian People. The Ukrainian peasantry has for centuries defied all attacks upon its ethnographic-national independence. It refuses, even in its most distant Eastern Siberian colonies, to be assimilated by the Russians. This characteristic has made the Ukrainians the subject of a proverb with their Russian neighbors: “Khakhol vsyegda khakhol”—the Ukrainian remains a Ukrainian everywhere.

In the following sections we shall discuss briefly all the foundations of the independence of the Ukrainians as a nation. The chief foundations of an independent nation are, proceeding from the less important to the most important: Independent anthropological characteristics, a distinct, independent language, uniform historico-political traditions and aspirations for the future, an independent culture, and, especially, a compact geographical territory.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE UKRAINIANS

Anthropology is a comparatively recent science. Barely a century has elapsed since the beginning of its serious work. The material thus far collected by anthropological science, while it might seem immense to some, is, nevertheless, still small, and what is even more important, irregular. Concerning some races and peoples the science has many thousands of measurements at its command, while other races and peoples are known from very few measurements. For this reason the science of anthropology is still a long way removed from an exact knowledge and perfect description of different races and peoples. Even in Europe, where anthropological investigations have been based on a study of the greatest number of human individuals, the distribution of various anthropological racial characteristics in different peoples and tribes of the continent were, until recently, very hard to interpret and to understand. It is the pioneer work of investigation of Deniker, Hamy and others, that has made it possible to divide the population of Europe into so-called anthropological races.

Pure-blooded peoples, all of whose individuals possess the same anthropological characteristics, exist nowhere. Hardly in the most inaccessible corners of the globe, are small primitive peoples found who approach the ideal of pure-bloodedness. The great civilized peoples of the earth are all of them more or less heterogeneous peoples, and show no uniform anthropological type. This is true especially of the Western and Central European cultured peoples: French, English, Spanish, Italians, even Germans. Continued commixtures, which can certainly be proved historically, have entirely eradicated the original anthropological characteristics of these civilized nations. No wonder, then, that anthropogeography, in view of these most apparent examples, has almost given up designating anthropological characteristics as the characteristics of nations.

But, in considering an Eastern European nation, such misgivings of anthropogeographical science cannot be justified. Just as the physico-geographic conditions of Western and Central Europe are measured by other standards than those of Eastern Europe, so the anthropogeographical problems of this region, too, must be approached differently. Just as the physico-geographical variety of Western and Central Europe gives way to Eastern European uniformity in Ukrainian territory, so the anthropological variety gives place to greater unity. Vast areas of the Ukraine, even without any great natural hindrance, were always unfavorable to separation into classes, and did not encourage the development of physical differences. And foreign admixtures are almost out of the question. For the foreign peoples which, since the earliest beginnings of history, traversed or even dominated the region of the Ukraine, were first of all too small in number to make any noticeable impression on the anthropological type of the Ukrainians. And, besides that, the foreign races—almost all nomad peoples—came into the land as fierce enemies, with whom there existed no voluntary peaceful relations. For these reasons the Ukrainian nation reveals a much greater uniformity in its anthropological aspect than the nations of Western and Central Europe, which, in the course of history, were visited by innumerable peoples of the most varied anthropological types, who stayed there and were assimilated. If, therefore, in these peoples, anthropological characteristics can have no particular significance, the matter is quite different with the Ukrainians and many other Eastern European nations. Here, anthropological peculiarities still have considerable weight as distinguishing characteristics of nations.

Investigations concerning the anthropology of the Ukrainians began more than half a century ago. But they were made, without any system, in different regions of the great national territory selected, quite without a plan, and for a long time gave no acceptable results. Not until the 20th Century was enough material gathered to at least make it possible to determine the main anthropological type of the Ukrainians. The most important investigators in this field are: Hopernitsky, Protzenko, Welker, Popov, Hilchenko, Krasnov, Petrov, Erckert, Emme, Talko Hrincewich, Diebold, Biloyid, Anuchin, Ivanovsky, Vovk and Rakovsky.

To be sure, according to these investigations, the Ukrainians, too, are anthropologically a mixed race, just as the other nations of Europe. But the formation of this mixed race took place in a very distant prehistoric past and later admixtures have been too insignificant to visibly change the original racial type of the Ukrainians. From the Vislok to the Kuban, from the Pripet to the Black Sea, the Ukrainian people constitute a uniform anthropological type. This type has preserved itself in its purest state in one wide zone which embraces the Ukrainian Carpathian Mountain lands, Pokutye, Podolia, Dnieper Plateau and Dnieper Plain, the Donetz Plateau and the Kuban sub-Caucasus country. Tall stature, with long legs and broad shoulders, strongly pigmented complexion, dark, rich, curly hair, rounded head and long face with a high and broad brow, dark eyes, straight nose, strongly developed elongated lower part of the face, medium mouth and small ears; that is the type. Outside the described main zone of distribution of the Ukrainian racial type, these characteristics become less and less sharply defined, altho at all parts of the ethnographic boundary the anthropological differences of the Ukrainians from their neighbors, especially from the Poles, White Russians and Russians, are very clearly marked.

The mean stature of the Ukrainians is 1670 mm. Consequently the Ukrainians are among the tallest peoples of Europe, and in this respect they surpass their neighboring nations by a great deal. The average height of the White Russians is only 1651 mm., the Poles 1654 mm., the Russian 1657 mm., of 100 individuals among the Ukrainians, 53 are taller than the average, 47 shorter; among the Poles and Russians 51% taller and 49% shorter. Right here we see a great difference between the Ukrainians and their neighbors, as well as a great similarity of these three peoples.

The tall stature of the pure Ukrainian racial type is pretty regular in the above-mentioned main zone. The tallest stature is that of the Kuban Ukrainians of the sub-Caucasus country (1701 mm.). It is due to the fact that the Ukrainians of that region are, to a great extent, descendants of the Zaporog Cossacks, who for centuries represented the flower of the physical power of the Ukrainian people. Barely below that is the stature of the Hutzuls (1693 mm.), of the Podolians, Volhynians and Dnieper dwellers. In Central Galicia, Podlakhia, Polissye, in the Don country, that is in direct proximity to the Poles, White Russians and Russians, the stature of the Ukrainians decreases appreciably. But, even in these border countries, the Ukrainian people form a strong contrast, with their higher stature, to their neighbors, especially to the Russians, with their heavy mixture of the small grown Finnish-Mongolian elements. Anuchin emphasizes expressly that in those parts in any Russian “Government” into which the smallest tip of Ukrainian territory extends, the average height of the recruits is noticeably increased. Because of their fine stature many Ukrainians in Russia are stationed in the regiments of the guard.

In the Ukrainians, the tall slender form is coupled with breadth of shoulders and great chest-measurement. From the material gathered by Ivanosky, it is evident that in this respect the Ukrainians surpass all their neighbors. The average chest-measurement of the Ukrainians is 55.04% of the length of the body, of the Poles 54.11, of the White Russians 53.84, of the Russians only 52.18.

In respect of length of arms and legs, the Ukrainians again occupy an independent position among the nations of Eastern Europe. In the White Russians, the length of the arms is 45.1% of the length of the body, in the Poles and Ukrainians 45.7, in the Russians 46.0. The length of the legs is greatest in the Ukrainians (53.6%), much less in the Poles (52.1) and White Russians (51.7), and least in the Russians (50.5), which again indicates considerable mixture of Finnish-Mongolian blood. (The length of leg of the Mordvines is only 49%, that of the Altaic Tartars 48.6).

The most important anthropological characteristic was for a long time thought to be the shape of the skull. The Ukrainians belong (as do all Slavs, for that matter) to the class of Brachicephalites (short heads). The average skull index in the Ukrainians amounts to 83.2. Among the neighboring peoples, the Poles (82.1) are least short-headed, then follow the Russians, almost the same as the Poles (namely 82.3), and then further away the Ukrainians (83.2). The greatest Brachicephalousness appears in the White Russians (85.1). The height of the skull is greatest in the Ukrainians (70.3), smaller in the Russians (70.1), smallest in the White Russians (66.1).

The skull index of the Ukrainians shows a similar territorial distribution as the stature. The greatest brachicephalousness is found in the Hutzuls; it decreases continually as we go northeast and east, so that in the Don and Kuban region the skull index is smallest. Besides, the shortness of head of the Ukrainians decreases regularly on the Polish and Russian borders, as a result of centuries of proximity. In the Russians the shortness of head is much less marked than in the Ukrainians, because of the Finnish strain, in the Poles because of the commixture with Finns and a primeval European long-headed and light-haired race.

Just as in the shape of the skull, so also in the form of the nose, the Ukrainians reveal distinct differences from their neighbors. In the Ukrainians the nose is usually straight and thin. The nasal index is 67.7, and consequently somewhat greater than in the Poles (66.2). Then follow the Russians (68.5) and the White Russians (69.2).

The width of the face in the Ukrainians is on the average 180, that of the Poles 181, of the Russians 182, of the White Russians 186; the facial index in the Ukrainians 78.1, in the White Russians 76.2, in the Poles 76.3, in the Russians 76.7. Here, too, we note the great difference of the Ukrainians from their neighbors and the similarity of these to one another.

The color of hair and eyes is by far not so sure an anthropological characteristic as the above-mentioned, yet constitutes an important complement. In this respect, too, the position of the Ukrainians among their neighbor nations is just as independent as in regard to the above discussed characteristics. Among the Ukrainians dark shades predominate, so that out of 100 individuals only 29.5% have light hair and eyes, 35% medium color, and 35% dark. In the Russians the percentages run 37% light, 41% medium, 22% dark; in the Poles 35% light, 46% medium and only 19% dark. Thus the light type is much more common in the neighboring races than in the Ukrainians.

In the distribution of color of eyes and hair in the Ukrainians the same territorial law holds as in the distribution of stature and shape of skull. In the main zone of the Ukrainian racial type, but especially in the southwest, the color of hair and eyes is most characteristically represented. Near the Polish, White Russian and Russian borders, the Ukrainian type loses much of its peculiarity.

This short anthropological sketch of the Ukrainians, despite its scanty and general character, enables us to perceive very clearly that the Ukrainians show extremely little anthropological similarity to the Poles, White Russians and Russians. On the other hand, all of these neighboring races of the Ukrainians are very similar, and closely related to each other. The Pole, the White Russian and the Russian, stand very close to one another, while the Ukrainian is very different from all his neighbors and, from an anthropological point of view, holds an entirely independent position.

The vanity of the impression that the Ukrainians are Polonized Russians or Russified Poles, therefore, becomes apparent at once. The “unity theories,” Polish and Russian, which are based on perverted historical and philological phrases, are here opposed by a natural science, with its exact results of investigations.

But anthropology discredits not only these theories which are still dominating European science. Several Polish historians have recently evolved a new theory of the origin of the Ukrainians and spread it thru Europe. According to this theory the Ukrainians are a mixture of Slavs and the Mongolian-Turkish nomad tribes which traversed and commanded the Ukrainian steppes for centuries; they are a semi-nomadic steppe people, incapable of culture, whose development might bring with it the greatest dangers for European civilization.

The science of anthropology, however, robs this theory of its very foundation. The Mongolian-Turkish nomad tribes were almost all distinguished by low stature, short legs, long arms and round heads. The same characteristics should therefore appear very distinctly in the Ukrainian racial type. But the Ukrainians have a higher stature than any of the neighboring peoples, the longest legs, and arms of medium length. And the brachicephalousness of the Ukrainians is least just in the east, where mixing with the Mongolian tribes could proceed most easily.

The anthropological type of the Ukrainians, then, reveals complete individuality as opposed to the Polish, White Russian and Russian type, and betrays no noticeable trace of a Mongolian admixture. The difference of the Ukrainian type from the types of other Eastern Slavs caught the attention of the great geographer, Reclus, in the eighties of the past century. At that time he noticed the closer relationship of the Ukrainians to the Southern Slavs. Toward the end of the 19th Century, Hamy divided all the Slavs into two large groups, a tall brachicephalous group with dark hair, and a short, less brachicephalous group with light hair. In the first group he included the Serbians, Croatians, Slovenes, Czechs and Ukrainians; in the second the Polabians, Poles, White Russians and Russians. A similar division was accepted also by Deniker. According to his view the Ukrainians belong to the so-called Adriatic (Dinaric) Race, while the Poles and the Russians belong to the two closely related races, the Vistula Race and the Oriental Race, respectively. The Adriatic Race has recently come to be considered by many the specifically Slavic Race. However, it has remained comparatively pure only in the case of the Southern Slavs and the Ukrainians, while the Northern Slavic races reveal strong foreign admixtures.

Anthropology shows us, in the Ukrainians, a finely grown, physically sturdy race of men. Another characteristic of the Ukrainian People is its great fecundity. Wherever the Ukrainian People has not yet degenerated thru social pressure and the spread of pauperism, it shows remarkably high birth figures, which, despite the high infant mortality resulting from the low grade of culture, occasion a very rapid increase in population. The birth rate and rate of increase (1900–1904) for the central districts of the Ukraine in European Russia are on the average yearly: Volhynia 4.5% and 2%, Podolia 4.3% and 1.8%, Kiev 4% and 1.4%, Kherson 4.5% and 2%, Tauria 4.2% and 1.9%, Katerinoslav 5.6% and 2.8%, Chernihiv 4.6% and 2%, Poltava 4.3% and 1.9%, Kharkiv 4.9% and 2%. Galicia, in the early years of the century, has had a yearly increase in population of 1.6 to 1.8%. These figures, which are much higher than the corresponding figures in Polish or Russian national territory, constitute one of the less agreeable facts which enable us to look with confidence toward the future of the Ukrainian nation. For the greater increase of the Ukrainians is not due to a higher state of culture of the neighbor nations. The Polish and Russian peasantry is not only not superior to the Ukrainian in respect to culture, but, on the contrary, inferior. The greater increase of the Ukrainians is connected only with their superior racial qualities.

THE UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE

Language is not an absolutely necessary distinguishing characteristic of a nation, as is shown by the examples of the Swiss, the North Americans, and the Spanish and Portuguese daughter-nations in America. If the Ukrainians, determining to be considered an independent nation, had the remaining characteristics of an independent nation, they would certainly be one even if their language were identical with the Russian, White Russian or Polish.

But, in this regard, the Ukrainians are in the favorable position of really calling an independent language their own. To be sure, the opinion has been to a great extent spread thruout Europe that the Ukrainian language is a rural dialect of the Polish language, and official Russia is still encouraging the view that there is only a “Little Russian dialect” of the Russian language; European science and publicism opened the doors to both the above-mentioned unity theories, and the Russian unity theory has become the solely dominating one even in German science.

Slavic philology passes a different judgment. With the exception of a few Pan-Russian philologists (Florinsky, etc.), who, as a matter of fact, are not capable philologists at all, the entire philological profession is decided on the point that the Ukrainian language is related to the Russian and the Polish only to the extent that the Serbian and Bulgarian are, for instance, or the Polish and Czechic. The investigations of Miklosich, Malinovsky, Dahl, Maksimovich, Potebnia, Zitetsky, Ohonovsky, Shakhmatov, Broch, Baudouin de Courtenay, Fortunatov, Korsh, Krimsky, Satotsky, and others, have proved beyond a doubt that the Ukrainian language is not a dialect of the Russian language, but an independent language of equal rank with the Russian. The same opinion has been expressed most forcibly by the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in its famous official decision, “Concerning the Removal of the Restrictions on Little Russian Publications, St. Petersburg, 1905.” The Academy emphasized expressly that the Russian and Ukrainian languages are two independent languages of equal rank. The Russian written language is not built up on a general East Slavic, but only on a Great Russian foundation. Hence, it cannot be forced upon the Ukrainians, since they have a completely developed written language at their command.

It is very likely that, in a far distant prehistoric time, all Eastern Slavic tribes, the ancestors of the present Ukrainians, White Russians and Russians, spoke a common tongue. But soon after the beginnings of historical life in Eastern Europe we see these Slavic races divided lingually into three groups. In the 11th Century, the differences between the language spoken in Kiev or Halich on the one hand, and Vladimir on the Klasma or Sugdal on the other, were already distinct. The political unification of all the Eastern Slavic tribes in the Kiev Empire could not eradicate these differences between North and South, and they are very evident in the literary monuments of that time. The disruption of the Empire of Kiev into loosely connected principalities, the formation of the Muscovite political center, the decline of Kiev—all went to strengthen the lingual antitheses between the ancestors of the Ukrainians and those of the Russians. The Tatar oppression finally separated the Muscovite group permanently from the Ukrainian, forcing each to lead a separate historical life. The Ukraine fell under Lithuanian, then Polish rule; Muscovy gradually developed into the Russian Empire. The differences in language, which in the 14th Century were already appreciable, increased so strongly thru the independent development of each language that in the 18th Century, when Russia received the greatest part of the Ukraine beneath her dominion, the Russian and Ukrainian languages confronted one another as entirely independent languages.

According to the investigations of Stotzky and Gartner, the Ukrainian language, from a philological point of view, is related to the Russian only to about the same extent that it is related to the Polish or Czechic. Of all Slavic languages the nearest to the Ukrainian is the Serbo-Croatian. From this it follows that the Ukrainians must at one time have had a much closer community with the Serbo-Croations than with the Russians.

We see here a fine example of how relationship of languages goes hand in hand with anthropological relationship. (Incidentally, proof is herewith presented that the anthropological characteristics in the peoples of Eastern Europe have an entirely different significance from the same in Western and Central Europe). This coincidence of two sciences, entirely independent of one another, causes the Ukrainians to appear to us a very peculiar independent unit in the Slavic family of races. Only the restriction of the knowledge of Ukrainian among Slavists, the interpretation of Eastern European history always from the Russian point of view, the common church language, which, for a long time, was the basis of the written language as well, the unfortunate confusion due to the name Russ, Russki, which as ancient state designations for the Empire of Kiev were usurped by the Muscovite Empire and applied to all Eastern Slavic nations; these things have made it possible to conceal the real state of affairs from the eyes of European science and have helped establish the Russian unity theory.

That the Ukrainian language is independent and entirely different from Russian or Polish is known to every illiterate peasant from one end of the Ukraine to the other. He does not understand the Pole and the Russian; likewise his language is unintelligible to a Pole or Russian. Polish is the more easily understood by the uneducated Ukrainian, since the living together of the Poles and Ukrainians for centuries in the Polish-Lithuanian state resulted in important influences in both directions, especially in the vocabulary. But Russian, with its strange vocabulary and phonetic character, different manner of word-building, declension and conjugation, is for a Ukrainian a difficult foreign language. How much trouble must the Ukrainian peasantry endure at every step because the unintelligible Russian language is used exclusively in administration, court, school and church! The educated Ukrainian who has been trained in Russian schools has had much trouble to learn his Russian, and he never has so complete a command of it that a Russian could not immediately recognize “the Khakhol in him.” For an educated Ukrainian trained outside of Russia, Russian is as hard to learn, if not more so, than the Polish, Czechic or Serbian. Such obvious facts convince us of the independence of the Ukrainian language, perhaps, more forcibly than the arguments of learned philologists.

The Ukrainian language, like every other great European language, is not uniform. Because of the great extent of the Ukrainian territory and the great population, favorable conditions have always been present for the formation of dialects and idioms. The Ukrainian language has four dialects,—the South Ukrainian, the North Ukrainian, the Galician (Red Ruthenian), and the Carpathian mountain dialect. The South Ukrainian dialect embraces the south of the region of Kiev, Kursk, Voroniz, the entire regions of Poltava, Kharkiv, Kherson, Katerinoslav, Tauria, Don and Kuban. It possesses three idioms;—the northern, which constitutes the basis of the present Ukrainian literary language, the central, and the southern or steppe idiom. The North Ukrainian dialect includes the Chernihov country, the northern part of the Kiev district, Northern Volhynia, the Polissye along the Pripet, and the northern part of the Pidlassye. Its idioms are the Chernihov, the North Ukrainian proper, the Polissian, and the Black Ruthenian. The Galician or Ruthenian dialect takes in: Galicia (outside of the mountains), the Kholm region, Southern Volhynia and Western Podolia, and possesses two idioms,—the Podolian-Volhynian and the Galician (Dniester) idiom. The Carpathian Mountain dialect includes the entire Ukrainian Carpathian country and has four idioms,—the Hutzulian, the Boikish, the Lemko idiom, and the Slovak-Ruthenian border-idiom.

The Ukrainian dialects and idioms differ very little from one another, as indeed is the case with all the dialects and idioms of all the Slavic languages. A comparison of the Ukrainian dialects and idioms with the German, for instance, is entirely impossible. The Kuban Cossack or the Boiko, an Ukrainian inhabitant of Polissye or of Bessarabia, understand one another without the slightest difficulty. Only the Lemko idiom and Ruthenian-Slovak border-idiom show greater differences than other Ukrainian idioms. Beyond that, a great uniformity of language prevails thruout the wide areas of the Ukraine. A popular tale taken on a phonograph in the Kuban sub-Caucasus country is heard with the same understanding in a peasants’ reading society in the neighborhood of Peremishl, as if it came from a neighboring village, instead of a border country of the Ukraine thousands of kilometers distant. The same folk-songs, proverbs and fairy tales are found in Pidlassye and along the Manich, at Chernihiv and Odessa, on the Don and on the Dniester.

The Ukrainian language is distinguished by advantages which insure it a high place among Slavic languages. The great wealth of vowels, the full tone, the softness and flexibility, the transition of many vowels to the i-sound, the absence of the massing of several consonants in one syllable, make Ukrainian the most melodious Slavic language. After the Italian language the Ukrainian is best adapted for singing. Most important, however, is the great richness of the Ukrainian language. This richness is all the more remarkable in that it did not come about thru centuries of development of the language in literature and science. The common people have collected and preserved the treasures of the Ukrainian language. While the vocabulary of an English farmer, according to Ratzel, does not include more than three hundred words, the Ukrainian peasant uses as many thousands. And, incidentally, the purity of the language is remarkable. Barely a few borrowed words have been introduced into the language of the people thru the centuries of contact with neighboring peoples. They disappear entirely amid the wealth of pure Ukrainian words. What interests us geographers and natural scientists most of all is the wonderful wealth of the colloquial language in very striking names for surface forms, natural phenomena, plants and animals. The construction and codification of the Ukrainian terminology of natural sciences and geography was, therefore, very easy. The infant science of the Ukraine possesses a terminology which, for example, far surpasses the Russian.

The most important proofs of the independence of the Ukrainian language are Ukrainian literature and Ukrainian science. The Ukrainian language has given proof, thru its development of a thousand years, that it is capable of giving expression to the loftiest products of human feeling and human intellect.

Ukrainian national literature cannot possibly be compared with the literature of a Provençal or Low German dialect, which represents the daily life of a small group of people. Ukrainian Literature is the versatile literature of a great nation; a literature which looks back upon a history of a thousand years and continues to develop in spite of all obstacles. A strong foundation is furnished it in the remarkably rich, popular poetry, which has not a counterpart in the entire civilized world.

Ukrainian Literature holds a high place among Slavic literatures. Only Russian and Polish Literature surpass it in the number and greatness of their works.

The history of almost a thousand years of Ukrainian Literature begins at the time of the fullest development of the Kiev Empire, when the so-called Chronicle of Nestor originated, the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, the powerful Epic of Igor and other important monuments of Ukrainian Literature (the works of Ilarion, Serapion, Kirilo Turivsky, etc.). Their language is built up upon the Church-Slavonic dialect, but presents great linguistic departures, as early as the 11th Century, from the literary works simultaneously produced in the Russian territory to the north.

This promising beginning of the old Ukrainian Literature was almost completely crushed by five centuries of Tatar barbarism. The continuous state of war, the loss of their independent political organization, the crushing foreign yoke, permitted only a weak vegetating of Ukrainian Literature for five centuries. Legal, theological, philosophical and polemic literary monuments and the beginnings of the drama, written in a Macaronic language made up of a mixture of Ukrainian and Church-Slavonic, can at the most be considered proof that the educated Ukrainians of that time had too little leisure and opportunity to devote themselves to artistic literature.

But these times of decline of the written literature are at once the times of the greatest flourishing of the unwritten literature of the people. The old pre-christian religious and secular songs and tales were not forgotten, and the active, warlike life of the nation created an immense mass of epic folk-lore dumy, which was sung by by wandering minstrels (kobzar, bandurist). Toward the end of the 18th Century, when the political and national destruction of the Ukrainian nation seemed inevitable, the Ukrainian popular literature reached such a high stage of development that it awoke the educated classes of the nation to new literary life.

Through the introduction of the pure popular speech into Ukrainian Literature (by Kotlarevsky, in 1798), and thru the great influence of the popular literature, the foundation was laid for an unanticipated rise of Ukrainian Literature. In the course of the 19th Century the history of Ukrainian Literature has a number of great poets and prose writers to show, who would be a credit even to the greatest literatures of the world (Shevchenko, Vovchok, Kulish, Fedkovich, Franko, Mirni, Kotsiubinsky, Vinnichenko and others), as well as a considerable number of lesser poets. Great versatility characterizes the works of Ukrainian Literature in the 19th Century, and in the 20th Century its development in all directions is making giant strides.

The second half of the 19th Century was also marked by a very active study of the sciences, leading to the founding of two learned bodies very much along the plan of the so-called “Academies” (in Lemberg and Kiev). In every branch of human knowledge the Ukrainians can already point to publications, books and dissertations in their own language.

The versatility and richness of Ukrainian Literature assure it a prominent place among Slavonic literatures, thus furnishing proof, if any is needed, that the Ukrainian language is not a mere dialect, but a civilized language in every sense of the word; and the testimony of Ukrainian scholarship strengthens the case beyond a doubt. For surely nobody could discuss problems of higher mathematics, biology or geomorphology in a dialect analogous to the Provençal or Low German.

The rise of the Ukrainian literary language from the speech of the common people makes clear that it will be an admirable means of educating the race, in view of its well-known intelligence, into an enlightened and progressive nation. But the Russian government has been thoroughly aware of this, and for fear of national separatism, has left no stone unturned in its efforts to stop the development of Ukrainian Literature and, finally, by the famous ukase of the Czar of the year 1876 has forbidden absolutely the publication of any writings in the Ukrainian language. None but a really living and significant literature could have survived these thirty years (1876–1905) of repression, and Ukrainian Literature has stood the test!

HISTORICO-POLITICAL TRADITIONS AND ASPIRATIONS OF THE UKRAINIANS

Anthropological and lingual distinguishing characteristics are not sufficient to make a race into a nation. An individual nation, whether it be a Staatsnation or a Kulturnation, must have its own historical tradition, its own sacrifices and heroes, its own historical griefs and joys. These are the basis of the united aspiration to an ideal of the future, of that constant plebiscite which E. Renan regards as the thing which makes a race into a nation.

Now it is really the historico-political traditions which are very strongly developed in the Ukrainians. The story of his fatherland, full of the most terrible catastrophes, with the frightful Tatar menace and the oppression enduring for centuries, still lives in the consciousness of even the most uneducated Ukrainian. How few happy moments does the history of the Ukraine present, and yet no people in the world so dearly loves its past and so piously honors its national heroes as the Ukrainian People. And in this connection I do not mean the educated Ukrainians who know the history of their country, but the illiterate peasant, who recalls in his songs the naval expeditions to Constantinople, the old princes of the Kiev dynasty, the hetmans, and the great commanders of the Cossack period.

It is the historico-political tradition, living even in the lowest ranks of the nation, that gives the Ukrainians their most important indications of separate national existence. And, had it not been for the dense ignorance that prevails in Western Europe regarding the history of the eastern half of the continent, and for the advertising carried on to this very day by Russian scholars in behalf of their propaganda for “Russian” history, which has worked its way into all the history books, this real condition of affairs could never have been obscured so long. We shall now attempt to determine the main lines of the Ukrainian historical tradition, basing our exposition on the works of Kostomariv, Antonovich, Drahomaniv, Hrushevsky and others.

The historical life of the Ukrainian Nation has been of an entirely different type from that of the Poles or Russians. Hence, the historical traditions and, consequently, the present political aspirations of the three nations, are entirely different.

The Ukrainian historical tradition has its roots in the ancient Kingdom of Kiev. Altho the historians of Eastern Europe are still undecided as to whether the so-called Old Russian Kingdom was founded by the Varangians in the present Northern Russia, or by the Eastern Slavic tribes of the south in Kiev, I have no doubt that the latter view should be approved. Anthropogeography knows no instance of a pirate band, at most a few thousand strong, which, within a few decades, could constitute a kingdom embracing half a continent. The Normans, to be sure, were able to found governments in Normandy, Naples and Sicily; they were even able to conquer the England of their day and to settle there, because everywhere they could take advantage of already existing state organizations and modify them to suit their purpose. Whenever the state organization was just in its beginnings, as for instance, in their own country, the Normans exhibited no particular capacity for state-organization.

The ancient Kingdom of Kiev, which is called “Old Russian” in all historical works, was a state organized by the southern group of the Eastern Slavic races, particularly the Polan race around Kiev. The tribal chiefs, who had grown rich thru commercial relations with Byzantium, founded the State of Kiev. This government was already in existence in the beginning of the 9th Century. With the aid of mercenaries from Scandinavia (Varangians) who, since the middle of the 9th Century, had been serving in the armies of the princes of Kiev, the Kingdom during the 10th Century gave remarkable evidences of a very unusual activity of expansion. The Northern Slavic tribes, the forbears of the Russians of today, were subjugated, the nomadic tribes of the steppes were driven back, commercial and cultural relations were established with the Byzantine Empire. In the year 988 the Great Prince of Kiev (Vladimir the Great), together with all his peoples accepted Greek Christianity—with Slavic rites. There ensued, especially under his successor, Yaroslav the wise, a great advance in the material and spiritual civilization of the ancient Ukrainians.