|
Anthropological and lingual distinguishing character-
istics are not sufficient to make a race into a nation. An
individual nation, whether it be a Staatsnation or a Kultur-
nation, 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 plebescite 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 Constan-
tinople, 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 propa-
ganda 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, consequent-
ly, 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 viewshould
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.
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 con-
stitution 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 govern-
mental 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 extran-
eous 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 princi-
palities 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 Mus-
covite 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 nation-
ality, 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 depopu-
lating 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 un-
believers) , 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 pre-
vailed 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
Khmelnyzki, succeeded in annihilating the Polish armies.
Thus the Ukrainian Nation fought for and won its inde-
pendence again after three hundred years of a foreign yoke.
Chmelnyzki, 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 inevita-
ble, now that the Zaporog organization was extended over
great areas. Khmelnitsky negotiated with all the surround-
ing governments and peoples, with the Poles, the Transy-
Ivanians, 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 pre-
judice 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 Dneiper, under its dashing
Hetman, Mazeppa, made an effort, during the Scandinavian
War, to throw off the Russian yoke. Mazeppa made an al-
liance 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, incompletely wiping out the later, second Ukrain-
ian 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 Ukrain-
ians, with the exception of Eastern Galicia and the Bukow-
ina, 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 govern-
ment, therefore, inaugurated a policy of rigid repression
of all these points of difference. As early as 1680 it pro-
hibited 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 sup-
pressed 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 govern-
ment. 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 Litera-
ture. 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 ethno-
graphic 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 wkh 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 encour-
agement 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 thedespotism of IvantheTerrible.
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 signifi-
cance in some spheres of the Russian intelligenzia (nu-
merically 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 assimila-
tion 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.
|
|
