Chapter VIII: Book II: Anthropogeography (3)

The fact that the ancient state of Kiev, as well as its civilization, was produced by the ancient Ukrainians, is evident, not only from the fact that the most ancient literary monuments of Kiev already show specifically Ukrainian peculiarities of language. A still more important piece of evidence is the constitution of the Kingdom of Kiev, which originated thru the amalgamation of the newly organized royal power with the original republican constitution of the Ukrainians.

The ancient clan constitution has been of as fundamental importance for the historico-political tradition of the Ukraine as the Kingdom of Kiev itself.

All the power of government rested originally in the hands of the general assembly of all freemen, whose decrees were executed by elected officials, consisting in part of the war-chieftains (probably the later princes). In the ancient Kingdom of Kiev there was constant opposition between the power of the princes, which originated later and rested on military might, and the power of the clan assembly, sanctioned by long tradition. The Prince, his retainers, and the Boyar nobility, which gradually developed out of the body of retainers, were never liked by the people. The Kingdom of Kiev grew out of the union of trade, and was a union which at that time was necessary. The governmental system established by the princes of the Kiev dynasty, on foreign models, was inherently alien to the original social-political system of the Ukrainian People, so that the amalgamation of these two elements was difficult, in fact, almost impossible.

Altho, as time passed, the General Assembly (viche—a name that is applied to all political assemblies of the Ukrainians to this day) partly regained their former power, and, altho at the same time various provisions of the original constitution sifted into the new governmental organization, monarchy, nevertheless, always remained something extraneous and unpleasant to the people. There is no wonder, therefore, that the State of Kiev never attained a power in keeping with its great territory and population. The people ostensibly supported everything which tended to weaken the power of the government. Thru the entire existence of the ancient Kingdom of Kiev, its Great Princes were forced to wrestle with the Boyar nobility and the people for absolute power. This limitation of the monarchic power turned out to be a disaster for the Kingdom of Kiev. By applying the practice of succession to the throne, in accordance with a principle known as that of “seniority,” there resulted the formation of numerous petty principalities, all rather loosely, perhaps only nominally, subject to the authority of the Great Prince of Kiev. The Boyar caste and the people were very persistent in their labors to aid in the formation and maintenance of these petty principalities thruout the southern portion of the Kingdom of Kiev.

At the same time, it is very probable that if the ancient State of Kiev had survived a longer time, the Ukrainian People would gradually have become accustomed to a constitution founded on caste and privilege. It would also have been possible, as early as the Middle Ages, for the Ukrainian People to attain a constitutional monarchy. But things happened differently.

The Kingdom, weakened by partitions, was soon confronted by a powerful enemy in the young Muscovite State which was formed by the northern petty principalities of the Kingdom. In a series of bloody wars with the Muscovite State, Kiev was so permanently weakened that the headquarters of Ukrainian political life had to be shifted southward, in the 13th Century, to Halich on the Dniester.

Then, the situation of this Kiev country was such as to expose it to continuous invasion on the part of the nomadic warlike tribes which infested the steppes of the Ukraine. But the nation managed to hold them in check during this weary term of warfare. When, however, the hosts of the Mongol potentate, Djingis Khan, appeared in the Pontian steppes, the resources of Kiev and Halich were no longer equal to the pressure. In the three days’ battle on the Kalka (1224) their army was annihilated, and in 1240 the city of Kiev was razed to the ground. The principality (later kingdom) of Halich survived it by almost a century, but could not withstand the continued aggressions of the Tatars on the one side and of the Poles and Lithuanians on the other; in 1340 it was incorporated with Poland by right of succession, and thus ended the first national organization of the Ukrainian People. All the Ukraine, excepting the forest regions in the northwest, had been completely devastated.

The Polish-Lithuanian state treated the Ukraine as conquered territory. Being now dissenters in the midst of a Catholic state, the Ukrainian nobles were limited in their prerogatives, and deserted their faith and their nationality, in order to have a share in the golden freedom of Poland. The burgher class was tyrannized (as was the practice all over Poland); the peasant became a serf. The splendid task of an ecclesiastical union with Rome was solved (Florence, 1439; Brest 1596) in an unsatisfactory manner and bore little fruit at the time. Every Ukrainian was made to feel the iron hand of the Polish government, and their dissatisfaction expressed itself in numerous rebellions. And yet the Polish-Lithuanian State was far too weak to protect the Ukraine against the onslaughts of the Tatars. Every year these hordes of riders sallied forth from the Crimea, pushing their invasions even as far as Galicia and Volhynia, devastating the country and depopulating it by seizures of slaves, conducted according to a systematic plan. The victims of this slave trade filled the markets of the Orient for centuries.

It was inevitable that this sorely-tried nation should take steps to defend itself. And its efforts were successful in that they led to the formation of a new independent state, but unsuccessful in that they exhausted its resources and later had a tragical outcome.

The constant state of warfare on the Tatar border forced the Ukrainian population in those parts to adopt a policy of continual “Preparedness.” These fighting people of the marshes led a precarious life, but they had access to the virgin lands of the borders with all their natural treasures, and the exploiting Polish officials did not dare venture forth into these dangerous districts. These armed farmers, hunters and fishermen led an independent life and called themselves Cossacks, i.e., “free warriors.”

In the 16th Century there arose among these Ukrainian Cossacks a military state organization, the center of which was a strongly fortified position below the rapids of the Dnieper (the Zaporog Sich). The Zaporog warrior state, compared by some to a religious order of knights (because of their compulsory celibacy and their wars against unbelievers), by others to a communistic republic, shows us most clearly what has always been the goal of the Ukrainian “political idea.” In the Zaporog organization, absolute equality of all citizens in all political and social rights prevailed above all else. All authority was vested in the General Assembly of all the Zaporogs, and their decisions were enforced by elective officers who were, at the same time, officers of the army. The liberty of the individual was very great, but had to yield to the will of the whole. And when, in time of war, the General Assembly delegated unlimited dictatorial power to the highest official, the Hetman, it gave him a degree of authority with which the power of any one of the absolute rulers of Europe at the time could not be compared.

In the aristocratic state organization of Poland there was no room for such a lawless democratic state as that of the Zaporogs was in Polish eyes. The entire Ukrainian nation regarded the Zaporog Cossacks as their natural defenders against the terrible Tatar peril, and likewise as their sole hope as opposed to the oppression practiced by the Poles. An ominous discontent prevailed thruout the Ukraine, and after the Poles had naturally taken severe measures, a number of Cossack revolts occurred in rapid succession, beginning toward the end of the 16th Century and filling the first half of the 17th. In these revolts the Cossacks were supported by the oppressed peasantry. But the Polish Kingdom was rather deficient, always, as far as its standing army was concerned, and was obliged to appeal to the Ukrainian Cossack organization, which it could not possibly destroy, to aid in its wars against the Turks, the Russians and the Swedes.

Finally, in 1648, the Ukrainian Cossacks, aided by the entire people, from the Dnieper to the San, raised the standard of rebellion, and under the leadership of Bohdan Khmelnitsky, succeeded in annihilating the Polish armies. Thus the Ukrainian Nation fought for and won its independence again after three hundred years of a foreign yoke.

Khmelnitsky, after his victory over the Poles, extended the Cossack organization beyond the narrow bounds of the Zaporoze, over the entire huge area of the Ukraine.

Surrounded by enemies on all sides, the new state needed calm and quiet to enable it to achieve the necessary internal organization. Much time was needed to organize the new order completely in so enormous a country, to bring to a successful conclusion the fight against the Polish social-political order, which had prevailed here so long and was so different from the Ukrainian. It required much time to work out new constitutional forms, which were inevitable, now that the Zaporog organization was extended over great areas. Khmelnitsky negotiated with all the surrounding governments and peoples, with the Poles, the Transylvanians, the Swedes, the Turks, and finally, in 1654, concluded the treaty of Pereyaslav with Russia, with which they were related by ties of religion. This treaty provided that the Ukraine should retain a complete autonomy, as well as their Cossack organization, the latter under the suzerainty of the Czar. The Hetman, who was to be elected by the votes of the General Assembly, was even to retain the right of conducting an independent foreign policy.

But Russia had no mind to respect the treaty that bound it in dual alliance with the warlike Ukrainian nation. The democratic form of government in the Ukraine was an abomination to Russia, just as it was to aristocratic Poland.

Once the Cossack republic was under the control of Moscow, the Russian government felt that not a stone must be left unturned to destroy this dangerous national organism. Taking advantage of the untimely death of Khmelnitsky (1657), and the incompetence of his immediate successors, Russia began her political machinations in the Ukraine. The Cossack generals were inspired with prejudice against the Hetman, the common Cossacks against their superior officers, and the common people against all who were wealthy and in authority; huge sums of money were spent, successfully, and vast tracts of land granted as fiefs; and Russia thus fished in troubled waters to very good advantage. At every successive election of a new Hetman the autonomy of the Ukraine was cut down, and in the Peace of Andrussovo (1667) with Poland, the country was partitioned. Of the two sections, one, that nearest to Poland, which had been dreadfully devastated and depopulated, was ceded to that country, and this section very soon lost its Ukrainian form of government and its Cossack organization. The section on the other side, the left side, east of the Dnieper, under its dashing Hetman, Mazeppa, made an effort, during the Scandinavian War, to throw off the Russian yoke. Mazeppa made an alliance with Charles XII of Sweden. But the Battle of Poltava (1709) buried all his hopes. He had to flee to Turkey with Charles XII, and the Ukrainian rebellion was put down by Peter the Great with the most frightful atrocities, and finally the guaranteed autonomy of the Ukraine was abolished. To be sure, the title of Hetman was again introduced after the death of Peter the Great, but it had only a wretched semblance of life. Even this shadow of autonomy was destroyed in 1764; in 1775 the last bulwark of the Ukraine, the Zaporog Sich, fell into the hands of the Russians thru treachery, and was destroyed by them. The peasants became serfs.

Russia thus succeeded, in the course of about a century and a half, in completely wiping out the later, second Ukrainian state. The devious policy Russia was simultaneously carrying on in Poland, led also to the latter’s downfall. In the successive partitions of Poland (1772–1795), the entire part of that nation which was inhabited by Ukrainians, with the exception of Eastern Galicia and the Bukowina, which fell to Austria, became the property of Russia.

But Russia was not satisfied with political domination alone. Russia already understood, in the 17th Century, that the Ukrainians differed entirely from the Russians in language, customs and views of life. The Russian government, therefore, inaugurated a policy of rigid repression of all these points of difference. As early as 1680 it prohibited any use of the Ukrainian language in ecclesiastical literature. In 1720, the printing of any Ukrainian books at all was forbidden. All Ukrainian schools were closed. In the middle of the 18th Century there were, in the province of Chernihov, 866 schools that had been founded during the period of Ukrainian autonomy; sixty years later not one of these was in existence. This, together with the attempt to introduce the Russian language, which none of them understands, is the cause of the overwhelming percentage of analphabets among the Ukrainians. The Ukrainian orthodox church, which enjoyed absolute autonomy, with a sort of loose subordination to the Patriarch of Constantinople, was made subject to the Patriarch of Moscow (later to the Holy Synod) and became completely Russified. The Greek-United faith, which had many adherents in the Western Ukraine, was completely suppressed by the Russian government, and all who confessed it were obliged, by the most terrible persecutions, to “return to the orthodox belief.” The Ukrainian people became completely estranged from their former national church, which now is a tool wielded for purposes of Russification.

The bloody wars for independence which the Ukrainian nation waged against Poland and Russia consequently brought no realization of its political ideals of liberty, equality, and a constitutional, democratic form of government. Instead came a terrible political, social and national oppression, which threatened to bring about the downfall of the tortured nation.

But the Russification of the Ukraine seemed to be making very little headway. To be sure, many educated Ukrainians, for the sake of personal advantage or for other considerations, did renounce their nationality, and some in fact, like Gogol, became great lights of Russian Literature. Yet there always remained the feeling of national independence, together with a living historical tradition, which continued to groan despite all obstacles. The rise of Ukrainian Literature did most to aid this great movement.

The idea of working for national independence was revived first in the Russian Ukraine, and found its logical starting point in the tradition of the one-time autonomy of the country. As early as the forties of the 19th Century, the national ideology of the modern Ukrainian movement was complete in all essential respects. It then made its way very rapidly to the Austrian Ukraine, and Galicia, particularly, soon became a national Piedmont to the Ukrainian people, who were so ruthlessly oppressed in Russia.

The present-day political efforts of the Ukrainian nation are a direct continuation of the former efforts, and a logical result of the historical tradition of the Ukraine. The ideal of these efforts was, and is, liberty and equality and the participation of all in government and legislation. Not until the present time has this ideal ceased to be an anachronism; only the present has opened to the Ukrainian nation a field of political activity; only in the present have these forms of political life, which the Ukrainian nation strove for, without success, so many centuries, become the common possession of the entire civilized world. Hence, we may look with confidence toward the future. Now, at last, the times have come in which the Ukrainian nation may freely develop its political life; the times in which the political ideals which have been sacred to this nation for centuries, have become the common goal of civilized humanity.

The idea of the revival of the Ukrainian state developed gradually from a movement with modest aims to one of larger aims. It was generally recognized that the free development of the Ukrainian Nation could take place only outside of Russia. Hence, in the 20th Century, an independent democratic Ukraine, enclosed in its ethnographic boundaries, became the highest national ideal. Toward this goal all political parties of the Ukraine are striving today. The path leading to this goal is the fight for the autonomy of the Ukrainian territory in the frame of the states dominating it. In Russia, the efforts of the Ukrainians are almost hopeless. On the other hand, the Ukrainians place much hope in Austria, who has afforded her Ukrainians opportunities for political and cultural development.

The historico-political traditions of the Ukrainians are entirely different from those of the nations adjacent to them. The Polish tradition is a tradition of a one-time great kingdom, which was probably built up upon a local constitution similar to that of the oldest Ukrainian State. But fate permitted Poland to live thru the sorrowful period of partitions and civil wars, while, at the same time, the old Kingdom of Kiev was destroyed by the Mongols. Poland consolidated into a strong united kingdom, western influences destroyed the old local constitution entirely, the common people became serfs, and the classes of the aristocracy, nobility and bourgeoisie were formed. Thru wars, and particularly thru its union with Lithuania, Poland increased considerably in size, for a time including almost the entire bridge of land between the Baltic and the Black Seas, and, in the 15th Century, became the most powerful state of Eastern Europe. At that time the Poles became the dominant race over the Lithuanians, White Russians, and Ukrainians. The entire ideology of the dominant caste became a characteristic of the Poles. In this very property of a ruling people lies the basis of the aristocratic nature of the historico-political tradition of the Poles. This aristocratic quality has a more important foundation in the historical development of Polish society. The middle class in Poland declined very rapidly, and the nobility and the magnates dominated the entire political, social and intellectual life of the country, so that Polish society, in the last centuries of the existence of the Polish kingdom, was purely aristocratic, and was supported on the backs of the completely submerged peasant and middle classes. Even tho, in the patrician republic, when the power of the kings was extremely limited, mobocracy or even anarchy very often prevailed, these forms also were aristocratic. This aristocratic tradition is responsible for the fact that democratic currents still find little encouragement among the Poles. Even the social democrats are obsessed with the Great-Polish state-idea.

From these facts, we perceive that the historico-political traditions of the Poles are entirely different from those of the Ukrainians. Just as great is the difference in their present aspirations. The Poles, with an endurance that is worthy of admiration, and awakens universal sympathy, are striving for the reorganization of their independent state. But not with ethnographic boundaries like the Ukrainians, but with ancient historical boundaries from the Baltic to the Dnieper and the Black Sea. To attain this goal, the Poles are trying, above all, to hinder the adjacent peoples, the Lithuanians, White Russians and Ukrainians, in their national progress, and, whenever possible, to assimilate them. These efforts are responsible for the very sharp conflicts of the present day between the one-time rulers and their one-time subjects.

The Russian historico-political traditions are quite as different from and as opposed to those of the Ukrainians as the Polish, but in another direction. The Muscovite State was created out of the petty principalities which the ancient Kiev dynasty had founded among the Eastern Slavic races and the Finnish tribes of the north. From the blending of the Slavs and the Finns came the foundation of the present Russian or Great Russian (Muscovite) Nation. The name “Russian” was derived from the name of the dynasty. But the state was in reality simply Muscovite, for the Muscovite people gave this state a substance which was entirely different from the substance of the old Kingdom of Kiev. As early as the 12th Century we observe the Muscovite people striving for centralization and absolute power for the princes in their state. It was to the advantage of the prince to undermine the influence of the Boyar nobility and the clergy, and to attain absolute or even despotic power in the state. Not equal rights and liberty for all citizens as with the Ukrainians, or for certain classes as with the Poles, but the despotic authority of the Great Prince (later Czar), is the basis of the historico-political tradition of the Russian people. The absolute power of the ruler, that everlasting bugbear of the Poles and Ukrainians, becomes a sacred object to the Russian nation, and makes it possible for them to establish a Russian Empire which devours Poland and the Ukraine. For a comparison of the three adjacent states, the second half of the 16th Century affords the best illustration. At the same time that the radical-democratic Cossack republic originated in the Ukraine, and Poland was a paradise of golden freedom for the aristocrats and the nobility, with a powerless kingship and a suppressed people, we witness in Russia the bloody orgies of the despotism of Ivan the Terrible.

The historico-political tradition of the Russian people places the Czar only slightly below God. The entire people, without class distinction, are slaves (kholopi) of the Czar, his property. The individual counts for nothing; everything must be sacrificed to the general good, which is embodied in the Czar. The reforms of Peter the Great, altho they gave Russia the external appearance of a civilized state, had no significance for the historico-political tradition of Russia. At most, they even strengthened the prestige of the absolute rule of the Czar, thru arguments repeated after the Western European absolutism. Even the Russian revolution of 1905 could not weaken this historico-political tradition. At best the revolution undermined its significance in some spheres of the Russian intelligenzia (numerically small). And, even in these spheres, it meant only the modification of the authority for which the Russian national spirit retains an immutable respect.

The present-day aspirations of the Russian Nation are hardly definite in their outlines. Nevertheless, it can already be clearly seen that they will follow the beaten path of the century-old tradition. The greatest possible expansion and strengthening of the Empire and the assimilation of all foreign peoples (including the Ukrainians too), will constitute the main substance of these aspirations. The Muscovite world has always been extremely intolerant of divergencies in faith, language and customs. This intolerance has always existed, and always will exist, even tho it may sometimes conceal itself behind a very cleverly adjusted mantle of commonplaces.

UKRAINIAN CULTURE

When we speak of culture as a distinguishing mark of a specific nation, we mean, of course, not culture in the widest sense of the word, but those well-known cultural peculiarities which characterise every European nation.

The Ukraine lies wholly within the confines of the greater European cultural community. But its distance from the great culture-centers of Western and Central Europe has, of course, not been without profound effect. The Ukraine is at a low stage of culture, and must be measured by Eastern European standards.

The Ukraine, which in the 11th Century caused great astonishment among travelers from Western Europe, because of its comparatively high culture, can now be counted only as one of the semi-cultural countries of Europe. The very low stage of material culture, to which the economic conditions of the country bear the best witness, is characteristic of the Ukraine in its entire extent. The intellectual culture of the people appears frightfully low. The number who know how to read are 172 out of a thousand in Volhynia, 155 in Podolia, 181 in Kiev, 259 in Kherson, 184 in Chernihiv, 169 in Poltava, 168 in Kharkiv, 215 in Katerinoslav, 279 in Tauria, and 168 in Kuban. These hopeless figures, to be sure, are only a result of the exclusive use of the Russian language, which is unintelligible to the Ukrainians, in all the schools. Even in the first school-year, it is not permitted to explain the most unintelligible words of the foreign language in Ukrainian. This frightfully low grade of education of the people permits of no progress in the economic life of the country. Even the most well-meaning efforts of the government or the Zemstvo, break on the brazen wall of illiteracy and ignorance of the Russian language. And Ukrainian books of instruction and information are forbidden as dangerous to the state. No wonder, then, that the Ukrainian farmer tills his field, raises his cattle, carries on his home industries, cures his ills, etc., just as his forefathers used to do. There is a small number of the educated who are still cultivating literature and art, feebly enough for the size of the nation—but how could one speak of a distinct, independent culture here?

And yet it exists. For the low stage of culture which every foreign tourist, who only knows the railroads and cities, immediately notices, applies only to the culture created in the Ukraine by the ruling foreign peoples, together with the small mass of Ukrainian intelligenzia. (The intellectual culture of the Ukrainian educated classes will be discussed later). In the same way, every hasty observer would consider the Ukrainian peasant as a semi-European, standing on a very low level of culture. And yet this illiterate peasant possesses an individual popular culture, far exceeding the popular cultures of the Poles, Russians and White Russians. The settlements, buildings, costumes, the nourishment and mode of life of the Ukrainian peasant stand much higher than those of the Russian, White Russian and Polish peasant. Hence, the Ukrainian peasant easily and completely assimilates all peasant settlers in his own land. The rich ethnological life, the unwritten popular literature and popular music which, perhaps, have no counterpart in Europe, the highly developed popular art and standard of living, preserve the Ukrainian peasant from denationalization, even in his most distant colonies. The power of opposition to Russification is particularly great. The Ukrainian peasant never enters into mixed marriages with the Russian muzhik, and hardly ever lives in the same village with him. The ethnological culture of the Ukrainian people is, by all means, original and peculiar; entirely different from the popular cultures of all the neighboring peoples.

Even in prehistoric times, Ukrainian territory was the seat of a very high culture, the remains of which, now brought to light, astonish the investigator thru their loftiness and beauty. In ancient times the early Greek cultural influences flourished in the Southern Ukraine, then the Roman, and in the Middle Ages the Byzantine. Byzantine culture had a great influence upon ancient Ukrainian culture, and its traces may still be seen in the popular costume and in ornamentation.

The most important element in Ukrainian culture, however, is entirely peculiar, and independent of these influences. The entire view of life of the common man, to this day, has its roots in the pre-Christian culture of the ancient Ukraine. The entire creative faculty of the spirit of the nation has its source there; all the customs and manners and very many of the songs and sayings. Christianity did not destroy the old view of life in the Ukraine, but was adapted to it. This accommodation was all the easier, because the character of the ancient faith and philosophy of life of the Ukrainian people were not so gloomy and cruel as was the case with many of the other peoples of Europe.

Outside of the prehistoric, Byzantine and Christian body of culture, we observe extremely few foreign influences in the popular culture of the Ukraine. It is highly independent and individualized. The Polish and Muscovite influences are very insignificant, and appear only here and there in the borderlands of the Ukraine.

It would require the giving of a detailed ethnological description of the Ukrainian people if we wished to draw a complete picture of its peculiar culture. Such a description has no place in geography, and certainly none in a book of such general nature as this. Therefore, I shall discuss but briefly the various phases of the popular culture of the Ukraine, so that in this respect, too, the independent position of the Ukrainians among the peoples of Eastern Europe may appear in the proper light.

The Ukrainian villages (with the exception of the mountain villages, which consist of a long irregular line of farms) are always built picturesquely, in pretty places. The huts of a typical Ukrainian village are always surrounded by orchards, which is hardly ever the case among the Russians and White Russians, and very rarely so among the Poles. These neighbors of the Ukrainians plant orchards only in the few regions where professional fruit-growing has developed. In a Ukrainian village, the green of the orchards is considered absolutely necessary. The Russian will not endure trees in the neighborhood of his hut; they obstruct his view. In the Ukraine an orchard is an indispensable constituent part of even the poorest peasant homestead. And the separate farms, in which very much of the spirit of the glorious national past still lives, are hidden in the fresh green of fruit orchards and apiaries.

The Ukrainian house is built of wood only in the mountains and other wooded areas. In all other regions it is made of clay and covered with straw. The front windows are always built facing the south. In this way, different sides of the houses face the street, and in general, too, street life does not play so important a part in a Ukrainian village as it does in Polish, White Russian or Russian villages. The Ukrainian houses are always well fenced in, altho not so strongly and so high as the Russian houses in the forest zone, or as the White Russian houses. They usually stand (except in Western Podolia) rather far apart. Thus, the danger of fire is less than in the Russian villages of the Chornozyom region, where the huts lie very close together. As a result, the insurance companies, for instance, charge smaller premiums in the Governments of Kursk and Voroniz for insuring Ukrainian village properties than for Russian.

The general external appearance of the Ukrainian huts, which are always well whitewashed and have flower gardens before the windows, is very picturesque, and contrasts to advantage with the dwellings of the neighboring races, especially the miserable and dirty Russian “izbas.” All the houses of the Ukrainians, excepting, of course, the poorest huts, are divided by a vestibule into two parts. The division into two we do not find in the typical huts of the Poles and White Russians. A further characteristic in which the Ukrainian house differs from the houses of the neighboring peoples, is its comparative cleanliness. Particularly does it differ in this respect from the Russian izbas, which are regularly full of various insects and parasites, where sheep and pigs, and, in winter, even the large cattle, live comfortably together with the human inhabitants. The well-known authority on the Russian village, Novikov, relates a very characteristic little story in this connection. Several Russian families settled in a Ukrainian village. Naturally, cattle were kept in the living room. And when the Ukrainian village elders expressly forbade the keeping of cattle in the huts, the Russians moved out, because they could not become accustomed to the Ukrainian orderliness. It happens very seldom that the Russians live together with the Ukrainians in one and the same village. In such a case, the Russian part of the village lies separate, on the other side of a ravine, a creek, or a rivulet. In the regions of mixed nationality we see, adjoining one another, purely Ukrainian and purely Russian villages.

The interior arrangement of the houses and the arrangement of the barnyard differentiate the Ukrainian very sharply from his neighbor. Still more decidedly does he show his individuality in his dress. The mode of dress is quite varied thruout the great area of the Ukraine, and yet we observe everywhere a distinctness of type and individuality as opposed to the dress of neighboring peoples. Only the dress of the Polissye people bears some trace of White Russian influence, on the western border of Polish influence, in Kuban of Caucasian influence (Russian influence appears nowhere). But all these influences are slight. Ukrainian dress is always original and esthetic. No one can wonder, therefore, that the Ukrainian costume is surviving longer than the Polish, White Russian and Russian, and is giving way very slowly to the costume of the cities.

The description of even the main types of Ukrainian costume would take us too far afield; similarly, we cannot discuss the diet of the people in detail, altho in this respect, too, the Ukrainian race retains its definite individuality, those cases excepted, of course, in which economic strain forces the people to be satisfied with “international” potatoes and bread.

We now come to the intellectual culture of the Ukrainian people. If the material culture of the Ukrainians, despite its originality and independence is not at a strikingly higher level than that of the neighboring peoples, the intellectual culture of the Ukrainian people certainly far outstrips all the others.

The Ukrainian peasant is distinguished, above all, by his earnest and sedate appearance. Beside the lively Pole and the active Russian, the Ukrainian seems slow, even lazy. This characteristic, which is in part only superficial, comes from the general view of life of the Ukrainians. According to the view of the Ukrainian, life is not merely a terrible struggle for existence, opposing man to hard necessity at every turn; life, in itself, is the object of contemplation, life affords possibilities for pleasure and feeling, life is beautiful, and its esthetic aspect must, at all times and in all places, be highly respected. We find a similar view among the peoples of antiquity. In the present time, this view is very unpractical for nations with wide spheres of activity. At all events this characteristic of the Ukrainian people is the sign of an old, lofty, individual culture, and here, too, is the origin of the noted “aristocratic democracy” of the Ukrainians. Other foundations of the individuality of the Ukrainian are the results of the gloomy historical past of the nation. It is the origin, first of all, of the generally melancholy individuality, taciturnity, suspicion, scepticism, and even a certain indifference to daily life. The ultimate foundations of the individualism of the Ukrainian are derived from his historico-political traditions; preference for extreme individualism, liberty, equality and popular government. Proceeding from these fundamentals, all the typical characteristics of the Ukrainians may be logically explained with ease.

The family relations reflect the peculiarity of the Ukrainian people very clearly. The comparatively high ancient culture, coupled with individualism and a love of liberty, does not permit the development of absolute power in the head of the family (as is the case among the Poles and Russians). Likewise the position of woman is much higher in the Ukrainian people than in the Polish or Russian. In innumerable cases the woman is the real head of the household. Far less often does this state of affairs occur among the Poles, and only by exception among the Russians. A daughter is never married off against her will among the Ukrainians; she has human rights in the matter. Among the Russians, this business is in the hands of the father, who takes the so-called kladka for his daughter, that is, he sells her to whomever he pleases. Grown sons among the Ukrainians, as soon as they are married, are presented by their fathers with a house and an independent farm. The dwelling under one roof of a composite family (a family clan), as is usual among the Russians, is almost impossible among the Ukrainians, and is of exceedingly rare occurrence. The father has no absolute power in this case (as among the Russians) to prevent discord in the family.

It is part of the peculiarity of the Ukrainians that they seldom form friendships, but these are all the more lasting, altho reserved and rarely intimate. The Russians make friends among one another very easily, but they separate very easily, too, and become violent enemies. The Poles form close friendships easily and are true friends, too. Enmity is terrible among the Russians; among the Poles and Ukrainians it is less bitter, and is, moreover, less lasting. The capacity for association is very considerable in the Ukrainians. All such association is based on complete equality in the division of labor and profit. A foreman is elected and his orders are obeyed, but he receives an equal share of the profits and works together with the rest. Among the Russians, the bolshak selects his workmen himself, does not work, and is simply an overseer. Still he receives the greatest part of the profits, Among the Poles the capacity for association is but slightly developed.

At this juncture we may also discuss the relation of the Ukrainians to their communities. The Ukrainian community (hromada) is a voluntary union of freemen for the sake of common safety and the general good. Beyond this purpose the Ukrainian hromada possesses no power, for it might limit the individual desires of some one of the hromada members. For this reason, for example, common ownership of land which has been introduced, following the Russian model, chiefly in the left half of the Ukraine, is an abomination in the eyes of the Ukrainian people, and is ruining them, economically, to a much greater extent than the division of the land in the case of individual ownership. The Russian “mir” is something entirely different. It is a miniature absolute state, altho it appears in the garb of a communistic republic. The mir is completely a part of the Russian national spirit, and the Russian muzhik obeys the will of the mir unquestioningly, altho its will enslaves his own.

The general relation to other people has become a matter of fixed form to the Ukrainians; a form developed in the course of centuries. The ancient culture and the individualistic cult have produced social forms among the Ukrainian peasantry which sometimes remind one of ancient court-forms. The proximity and influence of cities and other centers of “culture” have, to a great extent, spoiled this peasant ceremonial. But in certain large areas of the Ukraine it may still be observed in its full development. Great delicacy, courtesy and attention to others, coupled with unselfish hospitality, these are the general substance of the social forms of our peasants. These social forms are entirely different from the rough manners of the Polish or Muscovite peasants, which, in addition, have been spoiled by the demoralizing influence of the cities.

The relation of the Ukrainian people to religion is also original and entirely different from that of all the adjacent nations. To the Ukrainian, the essence of his faith, its ethical substance, is the important factor. This he feels deeply and respects in himself and others. Dogmas and rites are less significant in the Ukrainian’s conception of religion. Hence, despite differences in faith, not the slightest disharmony exists between the great mass of the orthodox Ukrainians of Russia and the Bukowina, and the 4,000,000 Greek-Catholic Ukrainians of Galicia and Hungary. From the ancient culture and consideration of the individual comes, also, the great tolerance of the Ukrainians toward other religions, a tolerance which we do not find among the Poles and Russians. The spirit of the Ukrainians has, likewise, been very indifferent toward all sects and roskols. Among the Poles, sects flourished very luxuriantly in the 16th Century; among the Russians, there are to this day any number of sects, often very curious ones, and more are constantly arising. Among the Ukrainians, a single sect has been formed, the so-called stunda (a sort of Baptist creed). This sect is not the result of rite formalism, however, but merely an effect of the Russification of the Ukrainian national church. In order to be able to pray to God in their mother-tongue, more than a million of the Ukrainian peasantry is persevering in this faith, which came over from adjacent German colonies, despite harsh persecution on the part of the Russian clergy and government.

The worth of Ukrainian culture appears, in its most beautiful and its highest form, in the unwritten literature of the people. The philosophical feeling of the Ukrainian people finds expression in thousands and thousands of pregnant proverbs and parables, the like of which we do not find even in the most advanced nations of Europe. They reflect the great soul of the Ukrainian people and its worldly wisdom. But the national genius of the Ukrainians has risen to the greatest height in their popular poetry. Neither the Russian nor the Polish popular poetry can bear comparison with the Ukrainian. Beginning with the historical epics (dumy) and the extremely ancient and yet living songs of worship, as for example, Christmas songs (kolady), New Years’ songs (shchedrivki), spring songs (vessilni), harvest songs (obzinkovi), down to the little songs for particular occasions (e.g. shumki, kozachki, kolomiyki), we find in all the productions of Ukrainian popular epic and lyric poetry, a rich content and a great perfection of form. In all of it the sympathy for nature, spiritualization of nature, and a lively comprehension of her moods, is superb; in all of it we find a fantastic but warm dreaminess; in all of it we find the glorification of the loftiest and purest feelings of the human soul. A glowing love of country reveals itself to us everywhere, but particularly in innumerable Cossack songs, a heartrending longing for a glorious past, a glorification, altho not without criticism, of their heroes. In their love-songs we find not a trace of sexuality; not the physical, but the spiritual beauty of woman is glorified above all. Even in jesting songs, and further, even in ribald songs, there is a great deal of anacreontic grace. And, at the same time, what beauty of diction, what wonderful agreement of content and form! No one would believe that this neglected, and for so many centuries, suppressed and tormented people could scatter so many pearls of true poetic inspiration thru its unhappy land.

This peculiarity of the poetical creative spirit enables us, just as do the other elements of culture, to recognize the vast difference between the Ukrainian and the Russian people. The Russian folk songs are smaller in number and variety, form and content. Sympathetic appreciation of nature is scant. The imagination either rises to supernatural heights or sinks to mere trifling. Criminal monstrosities and the spirit of destruction are glorified as objects of national worship. The conception of love is sensual, the jesting and ribald songs disgusting.

Like their popular poetry, the popular music of the Ukrainians far surpasses the popular music of the neighboring peoples, and differs from them very noticeably. Polish popular music is just as poor as Polish popular poetry, and almost thruout possesses a cheerful major character. Russian popular music has many minor elements in addition to the major elements. But the Russian popular melodies are quite different from the Ukrainian. They are either boisterously joyous or hopelessly sad. The differences in the character of the melodies are so great that one need not be a specialist to be able to tell at once whether a melody is Ukrainian or Russian.

Popular art, in our people, is entirely original and much more highly advanced than in the neighboring peoples. The remains of the ancient popular painting are still in existence in the left half of the Ukraine. Wood carving has developed to a highly artistic form among the Hutzuls (there are the well-known peasant-artists Shkriblak, Mehedinyuk, and others). The chief field of Ukrainian popular art, however, is decoration. Two fundamental types are used; a geometric pattern with the crossing of straight and broken lines, and a natural pattern, which is modelled after parts of plants (as leaves, flowers, etc.). In the embroideries, cloths and glass bead-work, we find such an esthetic play of colors, that even tho each individual color is glaring, the whole has a very picturesque and harmonious effect. The decorative art of the Russians is much lower. It is based on animal motifs or entire objects, e.g., whole plants, houses, etc., and evinces an outspoken preference for glaring colors, which are so combined, however, as to shock the eye. Among the Poles, the art of ornamentation is very slightly developed. As for colors, they prefer the gaudy, not many at a time; usually, blue is combined with bright red.

For the sake of completeness, we must still say something about Ukrainian manners and customs. In this aspect, too, the Ukrainian peasantry is richer than its neighbors. Only the White Russians are not far behind them. The entire life of a Ukrainian peasant, in itself full of need and poverty, is, nevertheless, full of poetic and deeply significant usages and customs, from the cradle to the grave. Birth, christening, marriage, death, all are combined with various symbolic usages, particularly the wedding, so rich in ceremonies and songs, so different in its entire substance from the Russian or Polish. The entire year of the Ukrainian constitutes one great cycle of holidays, with which a host of ceremonies are connected, most of which have come down from pre-Christian times. We find similar ceremonies among the White Russians, some also among the Poles, e.g., Christmas songs, songs of the seasons, but among the Russians, on the other hand, we find no parallel to the Ukrainian conditions. Among the Russians, neither the Christmas songs (kolady) are customary, nor the ceremonies of Christmas eve (bohata kutya), neither the midwinter festival (shchedri vechir), with its songs (shchedrivki), nor the spring holidays (yur russalchin velikden) and spring songs (vesnianki), nor the feast of the solstice (kupalo), nor the autumn ceremonies on the feast-days of St. Andrew or St. Katherine, etc. The entire essence of the popular metaphysics of the Ukrainians is quite foreign to the Russians, and almost entirely so to the Poles. Only the White Russians form a certain analogy, but, among them, pure superstition outweighs customs and ceremonies in importance.

Sufficient facts have been given to make clear to the reader the complete originality and independence of Ukrainian popular culture. We now come to a brief survey of the cultural efforts of the educated Ukrainians.

The number of educated Ukrainians is comparatively small. Hardly a century has passed since the intelligence of the nation awoke to new life, yet, in its hands lies the development of the national culture in the widest sense of the word. The disproportion between the magnitude of the task and the small number of the workers for culture, is at once apparent. And yet the results of the work, in spite of obstacles on every side, have grown in volume.

The Ukraine lies within the sphere of influence of European culture. This culture has spread from Central and Western Europe over the territory of the Ukraine and its neighboring peoples, the Poles, Russians, White Russians, Magyars and Roumanians. Each one of these nations has accepted the material culture of Western Europe to a greater or less degree, and adjusted the spiritual culture to its national peculiarities. The Ukrainians, for a long time after the loss of their first state and the decline of their ancient culture, found no line along which they could develop their national culture independently. For centuries they vacillated between the cultures of Poland and Russia. To this day, now that the conditions are much better, one may still find among the Ukrainians individuals who, culturally, are Poles or Russians, and only speak and feel as Ukrainians. Such a condition is very sad, and causes the Ukraine untold injury—most of all in the field of material culture, which, in both these neighboring nations, is very incomplete. Agriculture, mining, trade and commerce, are on a much lower plane among the Poles than in Western Europe. And what is to be said of the Russians, who are a mere parody of a cultured nation in almost every field, altho they possess so great a political organization? No one need be surprised that material culture is of so low a grade in the Ukraine. On the other hand, it has become clear to every intelligent Ukrainian, that the development of material culture is possible only thru Western European influence, by sending Ukrainian engineers, manufacturing specialists, merchants and farmers, to Western and Central Europe to learn their business.

In the field of Ukrainian mental culture, the chief influences to be considered are Polish and Russian. In this field, Polish culture is comparatively very high. It possesses a very rich literature, considerable science and art, and very definite principles of life. The influence of Polish culture is limited almost exclusively to Galicia at the present time. But it was very strong until very recent years, when it began to decrease. At one time, however, the entire Ukraine, particularly the right half, was emphatically under the influence of Polish culture for centuries (16th to the 18th Century).

There is one element in the spiritual culture of the Poles which certainly deserves to be, and is, imitated by the Ukrainians. It is the tone of national patriotism, the love for the nation, its present and its past, which is everywhere evident. Hence, modern Polish literature must be a model for Ukrainian literature in its tendencies and its sentiments. But, beyond its patriotic tone, Polish culture is not appropriate for the Ukrainian people. It is aristocratic, by reason of its descent and its philosophy of the universe. It is far removed from the mass of the people it should represent. In spite of all efforts, the Polish culture of the educated classes has been unable to establish an organic connection with the common people of Poland. It has been built up above the masses and has not grown out of them. To build up Ukrainian culture entirely after the model of Polish culture, would mean to tear it from its life-giving roots in the soul of the people. That it would be deadly to Ukrainian culture, the Ukrainians have perceived for a long time.

Russian culture is much more dangerous to the Ukrainian people than Polish. In its material aspect it is of a very low grade. In the spiritual field it possesses a very rich literature and a noteworthy science and art. The spiritual culture of Russia now dominates all of the Russian Ukraine, and has, to a great extent, become prevalent even among those educated Ukrainians in Russia who possess real national consciousness.

This very circumstance constitutes a great danger for the development of Ukrainian culture. For, let the Muscovite conquest extend over the Ukrainians, even in the cultural field, and there is an end of all the independence of the Ukrainian element, and its beautiful language will be, in fact, degraded to a peasant dialect. But a still greater danger lies in the quality of the Russian cultural influence. The first evil characteristic of Russian culture is the complete lack of national and patriotic sentiment, which is absolutely necessary for an aspiring culture like the Ukrainian. Russian culture is infecting the Ukrainians with an ominous national indifference. Another unfavorable characteristic of all Russian culture, is the fact that it is undemocratic thru and thru, and very far removed from the Russian people. The Russian people did not create this culture; the educated, in producing it, took nothing from the people. An intelligent man, brought up in the atmosphere of Russian culture, is unspeakably distant from the Russian people, so that it is impossible for him to work at the task of enlightening them. The views of the Russian “lovers of the people” (narodniki), or of a Tolstoy, concerning the common people and its soul, simply offend us thru their unexampled ignorance of the peculiarities and customs of the common people.

A culture so far removed from the people as the Russian can bring no benefit to the Ukrainians. We observe this, best of all, in the condition of the muzhik, to whom the educated Russian has never been able to find an approach, and now the latter looks on indifferently, while the masses sink deeper and deeper down into the abyss of intellectual and spiritual darkness. To guide the common people along the path of organic social-political and economic progress, is a task which an intellect permeated with Russian culture can never perform. The last Russian revolution, and the beginning of the era of constitutional government for Russia, have furnished the best proof for the truth of this assertion.